REPORT
TO
THE LOS ANGELES METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY
ON
A MONORAIL RAPID TRANSIT LINE
FOR
LOS ANGELES
PART II
TRAFFIC, POPULATION AND ECONOMIC DATA
JANUARY 1954
RUSCARDON ENGINEERS
LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA
RUSH T. SILL.A. LM E,-- A.S.C.E.DONALD M. BAKER. M.AM. SOC.C.E.
RUSCARDON ENGINEERSENGINEERING -- MANAGEMENT
448 SOUTH HILL STREET
LOS ANGELES 13, CALIFORNIAMUTUAL 5809
January 15, 199~
CABLE ADDRESS:"RUSCARDON"
ALL CODES
Cover~ale a~i Colpitts,Consulting Englneers,120 Wall Street,New York 5, New York
Gentlemen:
We are please~ to transmit herewith our Report,
covering certain matters assigne~l to us in our A~ement of
April 15, 1953, in connection with the study, ma~e for the Los
Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority, as to the economic feasi-
bility of a monorail rapid transit line from the San Fer~o
V~lley to Long Beach.
May we herewith express our pleasure in this
assoolation with you in this study, an~ in the cooperation
which we receive~ therein from your
DMB: el
With kin~ regards, we are
Very truly yours,
RUSCARDON ENGr~wS
Donald M. Baker
Z
Zo
<
z
I FOREWORD
CONTENTS
Metropolitan Los AngelesPopulation GrowthCauses of Low Population DensityEarly Transit ServiceCause of Local Population GrowthFreeways as a Solution of Transportation NeedsFactors Necessary to Maintain Future Growth of
Population and Present Living StandardsCost of Making the Local Area LivableAvailable DataAcknowledgements
II THE STUDY AREA . .
Area SelectedPostal Zones
III POPULATION
Pa~e
1
115578
9ii1212
14
1415
Los Angeles County .Past and Present Population of Postal ZonesFuture Population of Postal ZonesDecentralization of PopulationPopulation Density .Location of Areas of Low Population Density
IV ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS
V
18
181821213237
4o
Median Value of Owner Occupied Single Family Homes-1950. 40Median Income per Family-1950 40Economic Indices 40
PASSENGER AUTOMOBILES 46
Density of Passenger Automobile Registration in l0 LargestCounties in the United States 1951-1952 46
Density of Passenger Automobile Registration -Los Angeles County - Past and Estimated Future 46
Statutory Requirements for Garages in Residential Buildings. 46Effect of Improved Transit Facilities upon Density of
Passenger Automobile Registration , 51
Z
Zo
<u
CONTENTS - C£!NTIND~D
Vl T~]E CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT OF LOS ANGELES
Number of Motor Vehicles Entering DowntownLos Angeles from Past Cerdon Counts 1923-1950
Number of Motor Vehicles Entering DowntownLos Angeles 1950- .
Decentralization in Retail Trade 1929-1948Number of Persons Entering Downtown Los Angeles
on Average Week Day 1924 to 1980
Vll TRAFFIC
Increase in Motor Vehicle Traffic 1948-1953Southbound Passenger Automobiles and Passengers Travelling
over Cahuenga. Pass-July 1953 - 16 HoursDistribution of Rail and Vehicular Travel over 24 HoursFreeway Construction Program
Vlll ORIGIN AND DESTINATION STUDY
Location of IndustryPersons Included in StudyInduB~rial Establishments Included in Study~rocedure Used in Securing Employee AddressesExpansion FactorZone 13Zones 14~ 15, and 17 .Zone 28 (Hollywood)Other Potential Passengers0ff-Peak Riding
7
8
9
TABLES
Area and Population-City of Los Angeles 1850-1953Past and Estimated Future Population-Los Angeles CountyPast and Present Population of Study Area 1930-1953Present and Estimated Future Population of Study AreaPopulation Changes by Quadrants 1930-40-50 within Various
Radii from Center of City of Los AngelesEconomic Indices - Los Angeles Area (1939-40 - i08~)
Density of Passenger Automobiles in the i0 Largest Countiesas of 1951-52
Los Angeles County Passenger Car Registration andPopulation 1921-1953
Cordon Counts-Number of Motor Vehicles Entering CentralBusiness District of Los Angeles
Page
53
53
5353
57
646464
72
72727373748081818288
42O
2328
3444
47
49
54
u
i0 Retail Sales - Los Angeles County by Major Economic Areas .ii Number of Persons Entering the Central Business District of
Los Angeles During an Average 12 Hour Week Day .12 Southbound Passenger Cars and Passengers over Cahuenga Pass13 Hourly Distribution of’ Passenger and Vehicular Travel14 Summary of Origin and Destination Study.
15 Employment Statistics in Areas Within and Adjacent toStudy Area~ as of ~ly 1952
16 Employment in Various Categories per i000 Employees inManufacturing in Employment Areas Adjacent to andIncluding Study Area
17 Potential Users in Various Employment CategoriesCompared with Potential Users Engaged in Manufacturing .
FIGURES
2
3
4
5
7
8
9I0ii
12
13
1415
Distribution of Population in Metropolitan Los Angeles-1950Fast and Estimated Future Population - Los Angeles County
1880 to 1980Past and Estimated Future Population of the Study Area.
1930 to 1980 - by Groups of Postal ZonesPercentage Rate of Increase by Postal Zones within
Study Area, 1940-1950Quadrants and Sectors Within a 20-Mile Radius of
Downtown Los AngelesDensity of Population Within Study Area. by Postal Zones 1953Estimated Future Density of Population Within the
Study Area,- as of 1950Median Value of Owner Occupied Single Family Homes
Within Study Area 1950Median Family Income Within the Study Area - 1950Economic Indices - Metropolitan Los Angeles 1920-1953Density of Passenger Automobiles in the i0 Largest Counties
as of 1951-52Past~ Present and Estimated Future Passenger Automobile
Registration in Los Angeles County 1921-1980Number of Motor Vehicles Entering the Central Business
District of Los Angeles - 1950Major Economic Areas - Los Angeles County .Number of Persons Entering the Central Business District of
Los Angeles During 12 Hours on an Average Week Day1924 to 1980
Pa.~
59
62
6975
83
85
FacinAPa~e
3
19
22
27
3338
39
41
43
47
48
58
61
Population of Metropolitan Los Angeles as of April 1953
Los Angeles CityOther 43 Incorporated CitiesRemainder of Area.
2~i00,0001,475~0001~038,000
Tot~l 4 613,000
Balance of Los Angeles County 37~000
Total - Los Angeles County 4j650~000
¯ _ Source - Research Department, Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce
~ Los Angeles City was founded in 1781 as a Spanish Pueblo, and was
¯u incorporated in 1850, or 69 years later~ with a population of 1600 persons.
By 1880, The City population had increased to ii~183 persons and that of
the County to 20,000~ in 1900-50 years after its incorporation-the City of
Los Angeles had a population of 102,489 and the County a population of
170,298 persons~ in 1950-100 years after the incorporation of the City-
its population was 1,970,318 and that of the County was 4,151,683 persons.
A recent Federal Census made in the Fall of 1953 found the City with a
population e.f 2 104,663, with an estimate of County population at this date,
made by ~he Los Angeles Regional ~lanning Commission of 4,750,000. Until
1940, County population has ranged from 1.6 to 2.0 times that of the City
of Los Angeles. In 1950 however, County population was 2.1 times that of
the City and in 1953 it was nearly 2.3 times that of the City.
The City of Los Angeles has added greatly to its area as well as to
its population in the past century, and is now re~u~e~ to be the largest Ci~
in point of area-in the world.
This rate of population increase-almost doubling every decade with
the exception of that of 1930-1940-has created a dynamic economy in the
area, which could naturally be expected to affect the pattern and structure
of any large community, but the period during which large numerical increas~
KEYSTUDY AREA BOUNDARY
MONO RAIL ROUTE
I O0 0 PERSONS
MILESo ,5 io! i i t I | 1 I I I |
SOURCESL A COUNTY REGIONALPLANNING COMMISSION
DISTRIBUTIONOF POPULATIONCOUNTY OF LOS ANGELESJANUARY~ 1951
RUSCARDON ENGINEERS ~ ~53
z
z
FIGURE NO. i
DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION INMETROPOLITAN LOS ANGELES - 1950
This Figure shows the disbribution of population in Metropolitan
Los Angeles as of 1950~ the boundary of the Study Area - discussed here-
after- and the route of the proposed Monorail line.
The "ellipse" of heavy population density, extending from
Hollywood southeasterly to Compton, is served at either end by the
proposed route. The latter swerves easterly to pass through the
Central Business District of Los Angeles, a focal point of a large
amount of travel, thence southerly for some distance, from where it
passes easterly to the industrialized area, and again southerly there-
from to Long Beach.
4
TABLE NO.. i
AREA AND POPULATIONCITY OF LOS ANGELES
1850 - 195B
: (Dec.31) : ADDED:
: 1890: 1859: 1899: 1896: 1899:
: 1906: 1909: 1910: 1912: 1919:
1916: 1917: 1918: 1919: 1920:: 1922: 1923: 1924: 1929: 19~
:
: 1927: 1928: 1930: 1931: 1932:
: 1933: 1939: 1941: 1944: 1947: 1949: 1953
: TOTAL: AREA: Sq. Mi.
: (3):
: "1610: 4385
50395: 50395: 102479:
240000307322
*~19198427000475367
50000053353595oooo963000
*576673
736963802358850143
10146221056983
10797891152806
441.74 : *1238048 :
: CITY : PEI~0NS :: POPULA- : PER :: TION : Sq. Mi. :
(4) ::
57 :150 :
1640 :1230 :2370 :
:
388o :3520 :3160 :39801650 :
:
1480 :1515 :1525 :1550 :1585 :
:
1990 :2002 :2085 :2443 :2438 :
2462 :26o5 :2800 :
441.83 : 1255829 : 2840 ::
450.53 : 1283859 : 2850 :: :
450.66 : 1281266 : 2842 :450.78 : 1294600 : 2870 :451.20 : 1544000 : 3380 :451.88 : 1697000 : 3760 :452.72 : 1840835 : 4025 :453.47 : 1920595 : 4250 :453.75 : 2100000 : 4650 :
Sq. Mi.(i) (2)
:
*’28.01 : 28.011.20 : 29.211.41 : 30.62
10.18 : 40.802.46 : 43.26
:
18.64 : 61.9023.26 : 85.1615.66 : i00.72
6.90 : 107.62180.59 : 288.21
:
49.71 : 337.9213.18 : 351.ii12.76 : 360.46
3.41 : 363.870.50 : 364.37
:
5.82 : 370.1929.73 : 399.92
9.30 : 409.225.90 : 415.12
19.14 : 434.26
6.88 : 441.140.15 : 441.290.45 :0.09 :8.70 :
0.13 :0.12 :0.42 :0.68 :0.84 :0.75 :0.27 :
* U.S. Census ** City IncorporatedNotes: Column 1 - City Incorporated 1850 Area -
City of Los AngelesColumn 3 -*Federal Census - Other Years -
Research Dept. LoA. Chamber of Commerce
the entire County oi’ II~<~,)(~ m~s~ 5±’um~l~,~J t~[~i<~n re<~uiirements in the
city were adequately~erve~, by two electric transit systems, which later
merged. During the 1900-1910 decade Henry E. Huntington built the
Pacific Electric Interurban Sys~ .~ connecting the City of Los Angeles
with all of the outlying population ce~ters in ~he County and the San
Fernando Valley~ and extending eastward and southeasterward to San
Bernardino, Riverside and Orange Counties. Th~s system likewise served
to collect and distribute freight throughout this four-county area.
By 1910 the City of Los Angeles had a populat~on of 319,000 and a
County population of 504,000. Trackage and service rendered by both local
and interurban transit companies were still adequate to serve transit
needs of the community. Ten years later, however~ by 1920, when the City
reached a population of 577~000 and the County of 936,000, rising construc-
tion and operating costs, with a continuation of pre-Worid War I fares
made capital investment in expansion o±’ rail transit facilities more or
less unattractive. Buses were then in the development stage and provision
of new facilities did not keep up with increased population and developed
area. Travel d~.-~÷~nces bed increased w~th increases in developed area,
and travel time had lengthened.
By this date, howe~er~ the motor vehicle had appeared. In 1921
there was one passenge~ ¯ automobile i’or ev~i~y 6.4 inhabitants of Los Angeles
County. Local residents found that it was not necessary for them to live
within a half mile of a transit line in oi’der to secure adequate transporta-
tion service in their daily movements between where they lived and where
they worked, shopped and played. They could use their automobile - because
of local climatic conditions for 365 days a year~ and they started to do
so. Settlement advanced beyond the end ~]~ rail transit lines and it was
zIdZ0
<
7
not until the end of the 1920-1930 decade that bus service was to any
degree serving these outlying areas. The increasing number of motor
vehicles created congestion, slowed down schedules of transit vehicles-
rail and bus-transit riders took to using their own cars, and the spiral
had commenced.
Had the advent of the motor vehicle in this country occurred fifty
years earlier, other large cities in the United States would undoubtedly
have commenced this current trend towards sub-urbanization far earlier,
and population densities therein would not be what they are today. On the
other hand, had it occurred fifty years later than it did, Metropolitan
Los Angeles would today have had a far higher ~erage population density,
a much smaller developed area and undoubtedly a smaller population.
Occurring at the time that it did, the motor vehicle encouraged low den-
sity and widespread distribution of local population.
Cause of Local Population Growth
From a long local residence and a study of factors which have been
responsible for the dynamic growth in population in Metropolitan Los
Angeles, the wrioer is of the opinion that it is not the local climate but
rather the type and kind of living which such climate allows-single family
homes, with front and back yards, flowers and fruit trees, a barbecue, a
two-car garage, and in many homes two cars-and proximity to ocean~ mountain,
desert and recreational areas-practically year around outdoor living that
has caused this growth. This widespread occupancy of single family homes
has created in this area what is probably the highest standard of living
the world has ever seen.
Travel distances resulting from a City population of 300,000 and a
County population of 500~000 did not create very serious problems of daily
z
z
8
movement, even with low population densities~ but when the Los ~~ngeles
City population reached 1,O00,O00 or more, and County population double
this figure~ the built up area of the community had become extremely
large. The problems of congestion and slower rates of movement began
to be acutely felt.
So far, however~ this condition has not resulted in a cessation of
population growth, as is evidenced by an increase in population in Los
Angeles County during the past 3½ years of around 600,000 persons, but
it has resulted in far more time being spent in daily movement between
place of residence and place of work.
Retail stores have moved out to the people, as is evidenced by the
widespread distribution of substantial shopping centers in the material
shown herein. Industry, however, has not to any extent changed its
general location, and the time required for people~ particularly those
employed in industry~ to travel from where they live to where they work,
has increased substantially.
Freeways as a Solution of Transportation Needs
Much talk has occurred over the past ten or fifteen years as to
the advisability of constructing a system of freeways throughout Metropol-
itan Los Angeles to provide a means of movement within the a.rea~ but pro-
gress in this construction has been very slow. The Arroyo Seco Freeway
connectin~ Pasadena with Downtown Los ~Ingeles was completed in the latter
part of the 1930-19~0 decade, and it is expected that the Hollywood Freeway
connecting the San Fernando Valley to Downtown Los Angeles will be open to
through traffic early in 19~4. The ~ona and Santa Ana Freeway should be
completed within the next two or three years. However, these Freeways will
not in any way serve the entire transportation needs of the community, as
they already are now approaching congestion in the sections where they
have already been opened to travel.
The method of financing the construction of freeways in this area
by the State Highway Commission s on a "Pay as You Co" basis, which
depends upon the annual allocation from gasoline taxes, by the State, for
their construction. This method of financing cannot, because of inadequacy
of funds, provide any adequate or extensive system of freeways in this area
short of the next 25 or more years. Unless some other method of financing
is developed, it is not believed that freeway construction will begin to
keep pace with increasing population and resultant motor vehicle regis-
tration.
Factors Necessary to Maintain Future Growth ofPopulation and Present Living Standards
~ here.¯
The first requirement will be served, at least within a portion of
the area, should the proposed monorail facility be constructed. As to the
To maintain anything approaching past rates of population growth
in the area-until a point of saturation occurs-two things are necessary,
(a) the single family residential characteristic of local living must
maintained, by the shortening of the time of daily travel between place
of residence and place of work to a reasonable figure, and (b), local
residents must have the opportunity to earn their living when residing
opportunity to earn a living~ this in the last analysis depends upon the
availibility of jobs in industry. The existence of such Jobs, also in the
last analysis, depends upon the existence of markets for local products-
agricultural, mineral and industrial.
Los Angeles County is today, and has been for many years, the lead-
ing agricultural County in the United States in value of its agricultural
products, largely because of the high priced citrus~ nuts and field crops
raised here. In time, with land use changes from agricultural to resident-
ial and industrial purposes, this present ranking will probably be lost,
but for many years it can be expected to continue at a high level since
land which produces agricultural crops of highest unit value per acre will
be the last to change to use for other purposes °
Petroleum is the principle local mineral product, although there is
an increasing production of non-metallic minerals in the desert back country.
0n-shore petrOleum production in the area has probably passed its peak.
Recent investigations indicate, however, the possibility of larger off-
shore reserves available for production equal in volume to the original
reserves in the Los Angeles Basin. The Tidelands Oil controversy has so
far limited off-shore activities to study and investigation, but if and
when this controversy is settled, it is expected that an active drilling
campaign would be initiated to develop this off-shore oil.
Industrial employment depends essentially upon markets for the pro-
ducts of local industry, and to support a substantial amount of such indus-
e try, distant as well as local markets must exist. Metropolitan Los Angeles,¯
~located at a considerable distance from the center of population in the
United States, is itself a rapidly growing market as are the Pacific Coast
and Southwestern States. Areas rapidly growing in population absorb con-
siderably more industrial products per capita than are absorbed in more
stable areas.
I~±so ~rge resources of rue± ana power, ana an ei’ficient labor force. It I
12
can be expected that, as soon as conditions settle down in the Orient,
even if this requires several decades to occur, large demands will be
made upon this local area for its industrial products.
Available Data
Probably in no other large community in this country has more data
been assembled or collected, for a wide variety of purposes, than in Met-
¯ ropolitan Los Angeles. Were it not for the availability of such data, thisO
¯ Report could not have been made within the time available ¯
While all data utilized was of recent date, not all of it was as of
single date. Also, coming from numerous sources, it was found that in
some instances data on the same subject varied slightly. In no instance,
however, was this slight difference of sufficient magnitude to effect con-
clusions reached.
The rapidly growing population of the area resulted in the greatest
differences in basic data. The county population increased some 600,000,
or 1~.5 per cent between the 1950 Federal Census, taken in April of that
year, and the most recent estimate was made by the County Regional Plann-
ing Commission, ~s of the Fall of 1953. Consequently, certain derived data
~~ based upon 1950 Census figures may be somewhat low. Wherever it was possib~
¯ however, to make reasonable estimates of quantities as of 1953, this was
done.
Acknowledgements
To name separately every agency or firm that cooperated in this
study, particularly those who assisted in furnishing information upon
which the Origin and Destination Study was made, would require pages. The
following agencies and their staffs, however, deserve special acknowledge-
ment for large volumes of data and information furnished and cooperation
rendered - Federal Bureau of the Census~ Federal Superintendent of Build-
in~s~ Assistant Postmaster~ Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission~
Los Angeles City Civil Service Commission, Los Angeles City Planning
Commission~ Los ~ngeles City Engineer’s Office~ Research Department of
the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce~ Research Department of the Security
First National Bank of Los Angeles, State Highway Commission~ County Road
Department~ County Administrator’s Office~ Automobile Club of Southern
C&lifornia~ Los Angeles Metropolitan Traffic Association~ Downtown Business
Men’s Association, Building O~ers ~nd Managers Association~ Pacific Electric
Railway, Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company~ Los Angeles Transit Lines~
California Public Utilities Commission~ Los Angeles Department of Public
Utilities and Transportation~ and the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit
Authority.
II
T~ STUDY AREA
Under the Enabling Statute creating the Los Angeles Metropolitan
Transit Authority~ the latter was authorized to construct a monorail line
extending from the San Fernando Valley to the Pacific 0cea~, the loca-
tion of this line being limited, on the Coastal Plain, to within a radius
of 4 miles on either side of the Los .;ngeles River The Authority was
likewise authorized, under certain conditions, to operate buses within the
above area. Hence~ it became necessary to determine an area whose popula-
tion, workers and shoppers would be served by the proposed facility and
such feeder buses or private automobiles as would be used by potential
riders.
Area Selected
An area was selected which embraced the San Fernando Valley, in-
cluding the Cities of Burbank~ Glendale and San Fernando, and which extended
somewhat outside of the 4 mile radius specified in the Enabling Act, when
it reached the Coastal Plain. This area included population, present and
future, which it was felt would be reasonably served by the proposed facility
and feeder bus lines. It totalled 330,011 acres-515.6 square miles-or 46.9
per cent of the area designated as Metropolitan Los Angeles.
In outlining the Study Area, as it is termed herein, boundaries of
Post~l Zones or Post Office Delivery Areas (described hereafter) were used
as exterior boundaries. In establishing these latter, there was taken into
consideration present daily movement of population~ by transit facilities,
and by private automobiles on competing highways, whereby people travelled
from their place of residence to work and shop. The boundary of the Study
Area was limited to an area outside of which people would probably use
.J
u
Z
Z0
<U
15
other means of transportation than the proposed monorail line.
The boundaries of this Study Area are shown on Plate IIl. Its
population, discussed later in this Report, and the relation of such popu-
lation to that of the County of Los Angeles, are shown in the following
tabulation:
Census of : ~ooulation :~ of Population: Los Angeles County :Study Area :in Study Area, of: : :County ~opulation: : :
1930 : 2,208,492 : i~334~i00 : 60.4
1940 : 2,785,643 : 1,626,937 : 58.4
1950 : 4,151,687 : 2,284,363 : 55.0
1953" : 4,650,000 : 2,473,329 : 53.3
* Estimate of Los Angeles County Regional PlanningCommission for April 1953
This Study Area has contained, at least since 1930~ more than one-
half of the population in Los Angeles County, although the relative pro-
portion of such population to that of the County has decreased slightly
since 1930. It is believed that the provision of better transportation
within the Area will increase this ratio somewhat in forthcoming years.
Postal Zones
In the 1940 and 1950 Federal Censuses Los Angeles County was divided
into a series of "Census Tracts", these tracts being areas which had a popu-
lation which ranged~ in 1940, from 3000 up to 6000 or 7000. There were 580
of these tracts in the 1940 Census. Increase in population in various
sections of the County has caused the sub-division of many of these tracts,
and in the 1950 Census they numbered somewhat in excess of 700.
Various reports issued by the Bureau of Census for its 1940 and 1950
Censuses contain statistical information-in addition to population-pertainin~
to each of these Census Tracts. This information has proved to be very
valuable in the present Study.
Shortly after 1940, the Research Committee of the Los Angeles Chamber
of Commerce embarked upon a project to determine and segregate the population
in the 1930 Census to Census Tracts as they existed in 1940. This was
accomplished, and at the present time there alre available "Tracted" population
figures for the County for the three Census years, 1930, 1940 and 1950.
There has been some slight shifting of Census Tract boundaries in the 19~0
Census from thcseof the 1940 Census, but for all practical purposes such
tract boundaries may be considered comparable for all three Censuses.
In the Origin and Destination Study (discussed hereafter) it was
found necessary to allocate places of work and places of residences in
accordance with information available to both employers and employees. Few
people in the County know the number of the Census Tract in which they live,
but practically every employer and employed person is familiar with his
Postal Zone or Post Office Delivery District. As a result, it was determined
to use these latter two Units (hereinafter referred to "Postal Zones") as
basis for studies of population and of travel patterns described in this
Report.
The City of Los Angeles is divided into Postal Zones south of the
Santa Monica Mountains, and the Cities of Glendale a.nd Long Beach are like-
wise zoned. The San Fernando Valley and the remainder of the Study Area is
not so sub-divided, but is divided into areas which are tributary to local
Post Offices and which are known as Post Office Distribution Districts.
In certain of the smaller Cities on the Coastal Plain, the City itself was
considered as a Postal Zone.
This study resulted in the development of 80 Postal Zones distributed
throughout the Study Area. Data pertaining to past and present population,
1T
to location of industrial establishments~ and other employing agencies~
and to place of residence of employees~ has been distributed amongst these
80 Postal Zones. These Zones are also shown on Plate III.
Z<
18
III
POPULATION
Los Angeles County
The Federal Census of 1880 found a population of 33~381 in Los
Angeles County. Seventy years later, the 1950 Census found a County
population of ~151~687~ or 12~.~ times the population 70 years previous.
The Regional Plarn~ing Commission estimates the County popul~.tion-as of the
Fall of 19~3-to be 4~7~0~000~ or 1~2.~ times the 1880 population.
To forecast future population in an area which has for so long been
functioning under a dynamic economy is a far more difficult task than to
forecast future population in more stabilized co~unities in the United
States. Table No. 2 and Figure No. 2 sho~ Census population of Los Angeles
County from 1880 to 19~0~ and in Figure No. 2 the County population has been
projected to the year 1980.
Past and Present Pooulation of Postal Zones
The boundaries of the various Postal Zones within the Study Area
~ere not coterminous ~ith boundaries of Census Tracts~ and in practically
every case~ except ~here the smaller incorporated Cities ~ere involved,
Postal Zone boundaries cut across Census Tract boundaries. In these Census
Tracts estimates ~ere made of the proportionate area of each Census Tract
within such Postal Zone~ and the area. and population of the Census Tract
within such Zone for the 1930~19~0 and 19~0 Censuses were estimated. From
these the total area of the Postal Zone and its total population for the
above three dates ~as estimated.
The entire Study Area ~as then divided into 13 Groups of Postal
Zones~ all of ~hich~ from local kno~ledge~ had’more or less similar charact-
eristics as to population densities and rates of population increase.
OF LOS AN6ELES COUNTY , CALIFORNIA8 M! LLIOI
~ 00~000
i oo~o
.o,. ’.,’- E, STI ATEI~ POP~UL.- ~880 1195,51TREIND
. - .~ENSU8 POPUL.
19 I0 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980
,,, ,,_,,, , RUSCARDON ENGINEERS
u
19
FIGURE N0. 2
PAST AND ESTIMATED FUTURE POPULATIONLOS ANGELES COUNTY-~I880 TO 1980
The writer has found, in numerous studies of population in Southern
California, that the percentage rate of population increase each decade
alternates, a decade with a percentage rate greater than the general
trend being followed by one with a rate less than such trend.
It will be noted that the rate of increase, indicated by the slope
of the line connecting points showing Census population, has this character-
istic. Rate of increase for the decade 1880-1890 is greater than the rate
of trend increase, that for the decade 1890-1900 is less, etc., etc. The
smallest percentage rate of population increase occurred during the 1930-
1940 decade, the Depression years.
As with population increases in all large Metropolitan areas, the
trend curve from 1880 to 1950 has a decreasing rate of increase with every
decade. Projected to the year 1980, the following are estimates of future
County population -
Census of 1960 5,500,0001970 6,600,0001980 7,5oo,ooo
These are believed to be reasonable figures, provided that the present sing~
family residential living characteristic can be maintained, by provision of
adequate mass rapid transit facilities and that no serious economic disturb-
ance nr international conflict occurs within this future period.
If the above trend curve were continued for another two decades, to
the year 2000, a County population of the order of 8,300,000 might be ex-
pected in 1990 and of the order of 9,000,000 by the year 2000. This, howeve~
in the opinion of the writer is too far in the future to estimate, with any
degree of assurance, the population of a dynamic community such as is Metro-
politanLo~ Angeles. See Table No. 2
TABLE NO. 2
PAST AND ESTIMATED FUTUREPOPULATION LOS ANGELES COUNTY
CENSUSDATE
1860
1870
188o
1890
1900
1910
1920
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
: POPULA -: INCREASE: TION : DECADE: : NO.
: IN :
11333
15309
33381
101454
170298
504131
936455
2208492
2785643
4151687
5500000
6600000
7500000
3976 : 35.1:
18072 : 118.0:
68063 : 203.9
68844 : 67.9:
333842 : 196.0:
432324 : 85.8:
1272037 : 135.8:
577151 : 26.1:
1366044 : 49.0:
1348313 : 32.5:
ii00000 : 20.0:
900000 : 13.6:
:
21
Table No. 3 presents the area in acres, population for the Census years,
1930, 1940 and 1950, and the estimated population derived from figures of
the Los Angeles Regional Planning Commission for the Spring of 1~’33, as well
as the density of population for each of the 80 Postal Zones and the average
density for the 13 Groups of Postal Zones.
Future Population of Postal Zones
It is believed that the ratio of population of the Study Area to that
of the County will increase somewhat in the future, and the following esti-
mates of future population were made -
Date County Ratio Population Population ofPopulation of Study Area to Study Area
County Population
1953" 4,650,000 53.3% 2,473,3291960 5,500,000 53.4 2,937,9991970 6,600,000 53.4 3,528,4001980 7,500,000 56.4 4,139,000
Z
Z0
Population for each of the Zone Groups was then estimated, taking into
consideration past rates of population increases for each Zone Group,
present and ultimate probable densities and general personal knowledge of
the areas. Population of each Zone was then adjusted to total Zone Group
population. Similar procedure was followed in estimating population of
each Zone in each Zone Group Results for each Zone and Zone Group are¯
shown in Table No. 4.
Decentralization of Population
One of the most interesting facts encountered in this study resulted from
anana~ysls of population increase within a 20-mile radius of Downtown Los
Angeles between 1940 and 1950. Total population within this 20-mile radius
in 1950 was 4,051,903 persons or 97.8 per cent of the County population as
of that date. The area within this radius was divided into four quadrants
MILLION
I MILLION
5 0 0,0 O0
I 0 0,000
~ 0,000
I. 0,000
~ 000
PAST ANO ESTIMATED FUTURE POPULATIONOF STUDY AREA BY R O. ZONE GROUPS
200019:50 1940 19 50 1960 1970 1980
RUSCARDON ENGINEERS 1953
FICARKE NO. 3
PAST AND ESTIMATED FUTURE POPULATION OF THE STUDY AREA1930 to 1980 - BY GROUPS OF POSTAL ZONES
The locations of the groups of Postal Zones designated alphabet-
Ically on this Figure are shown on Plate III. The slope of each curve show-
ing population is proportionate to the percentage rate of population
increase during each decade. Up until 1953, Groups A, I, J and M had the
greatest rate of Population increase. Following 1953, rates, except for
those of Groups A and M tend to more or less stabilize Group F includes"
the Central Business District of Los Angeles, which has shown a declining
population since 1940.
Percentage rate of increase for the 1940-1950 decade was as follows:
Group1950 Population in ~ of
1940 Population
261.2lO5.4115.9106.4109.1
F 93.7G 122.4H 131.9I 219.7J 268.9
K 157.9L 143.3M 397.4
Study Area 140.4
See Tables Nos. 3 and 4
23
TABLE NO. 3
PAST AND PRESENT POPULATION OFSTUDY AREA - 1930 - 1953
Z
Z0o :~ :
AREA :1930 POPULTN:1940 POPULTN:I950 POPULTN:I953 POPULTN::ACRES : NO. :DEN-:: : :SITY:
(2) : (3):: : : :
: lO7O4; 16667: 1.6:: 7286: 735: 0.i:: 11037: 3569: 0.3:: 6208: 980: 0.2:
15767: i.i:
NO. :DEN-::SITY:
(4) :(5) :
34356: 3.2:1462: 0.2:5000: 0.5:
-1769: 0.3:39201: 2.8:
: GROUP A: Burbank:Chatsworth: Canoga Park: Encino: No. Hollywood : 13968:
NO. :DEN-: NO. :DEN-::SITY: :SITY:
(6) :(7) (8) :(9) : : : :
78577: 7.3: 84591: 7.9:3258 : 0.4: 4250: 0.6:
9509: 0.9: 12252: 1.2:11133: 1.8: 14734: 2.4:91133: 6.5: 101287: 7.3:
: Northridge : 4503::Pacolma : 6813:: Reseda : 5390:: San Fernando : 26686:: Sun Valley : 5732:: : :: Tarzana : 4170:: Universal City: 290:: Van Nuys : 20124:: Woodland Hills: 7402:
:
Total :130313:
885: 0.2: 1230: 0.3:3148: 0.5: 5440: 0.8:1623: 0.3: 3725: 0.7:
12756: 0.5: 17574: 0.7:1964: 0.3: 4393: 0.8:
: : : :884: 0.2: 1821: 0.4:
51: 0.2: ii:0.04:
3152: o.7: 4166: 0.9:!9253: 2.~: 25661: 3.8:14810: 2.8: 19365: 3.6:40752: 1.5: 51760: 1.9:18687: 3.3: 20640: 3.6:
: : : :
4390: i.i: 5814: 1.4:7:0.02: 7:0.02:
79973: 4.0: i05214: 5.2:4774: 0.6: 6127: 0.8:
14059: 0.7:609: 0.i:
28268: 1.4:1025: 0.I:
73697: 0.6: 145275: i.i: 379408: 2.9: 455868: 3.5:
: GROUP B: L.A Zone 27 : 5269:: 28 : 6047:: 29 : 835:: 38 : 1058:: : :
: Total : 13209:
29128: 5.5: 34798: 6.6: 40311: 7.7: 39305: 7.5:30522: 5.0: 36306: 6.0: 39257: 6.5: 37952: 6.3:19498:23.4: 21300:25.5: 20866:25.0: 19869:23.8:20246:19.2: 22255:21.0: 20500:19.4: 19328:18.3:
:99394: 7.5: i14659: 8.7: 120934: 9.2: i16454: 8.8:
: GROUP C :: Glendale 1 : 1524:: 2 : 1368:: 3 : 517:: 4 : 631:: 5 : 1262:: : :: 6 : 3077:: 7 : 2939:: 8 : i003::: Total
7624: 5.0: 11464: 7.5: 15148: 9.9: 17457:11.5:8054: 5.9: 12299: 9.0: 13918:10.2: 16017:11.7:6194:12.0: 7172:13.9: 7653:14.8: 8810:17.0:8350:13.2: 9695:15.4: 9980:15.8: 11397:18.0:
15242:12.1: 17840:14.1: 18837:14.9: 21688:17.2:: : : :
10383: 3.4: 13041: 4.3: 15948: 5.2: 18350: 6.0:4465: 1.5: 6019: 2.0: 6785: 2.3: 7806: 2.7:2017: 2.0: 4599:. 4.6: 6986: 7.0: 7954: 7.9:
: : : : : : : : : :: 12321: 62329: 5.1: 82129: 6.7: 95255: 7.7: 109479:8.9:
GROUP DL.A. Zone 4
5:6:7:
18 :
:
Total :
: AREA:ACRES:
: (1) :
: 2132:1978:1066:1684:1942:2319:
TABLE NO. 3 CONTINUED
:1930 POPULTN:I940 POPULTN:: NO. :DEN-: NO. :DEN-:: ;SITY: :__:
(2) :(3) (4) :(5)
1950 POPULTN:I953 POPULTN:NO. :DEN- : NO. :DEN-
: SITY: : SITY(6) :(7) (8) :(9)
37581:17.6: 40761:19.4: 40858:19.1: 39362:18.4:40873:20.7: 48786:24.7: 50075:25.7: 48906:24.8:29249:27.5: 33018:31.0: 33438:33.4: 32118:30.1:39024:23.2: 42283:25.4: 43589:25.9: 41625:24.8:36634:17.3: 39171:20.2: 44136:22.7: 43267:22.4:17201~ 7.4: 23308:10.1: 29708:12.8: 30091:13.0:
11121: 200562:18.0: 227327:20.4: 241804:21.7: 235369:21.2:
: GROUP EZone 12
26
313739
414265
To’t~l
2065: 41845:20.2: 42632:20.6: 39751:19.2: - 38000:18.4:2798: 48729:17.4: 54469:19.4: 56244:20.1: 53323:19.0:2410: 32645:13.6: 34053:14.1: 35391:14.7: 35456:14.7:3160: 13734: 4.3: 17669: 5.6: 25780; 8.$: 25862: 8.2:2806: 16814: 6.0: 21875: 7.8: 27892: 9.9: 28322:10.1:
: : : : : : : : :
2276: 15297: 6.7: 17633: 7.7: 19808: 8.7: 20137: 8.8:2770: 30142:10.9: 33193:12.0: 35372:12.8: 35307:12.8:2811: 21764: 7.7: 24487: 8.7: 28261:10.0: 28712:10.2:
: : : : : : : : :
21096: 220970:10.5: 246011:11.6: 268499:12.7: 265119:12.6:
GROUP F :L.A.Zone 13 : 459: 9496:20.7: 9779:21.3: 10485:22.8: 9808:21.4:
14 : 258: 6866:26.6: 6704:26.0: 6414:24.9: 6728:26.0:
1072: 28015:26.2: 32042:29.9: 29473:27.5: 27608:25.8:1517 : 531: 24541:46.2: 27680:52.2: 24699:46.5: 23181:43.6:21 : 1048: 14944:14.2: 14989:14.3: 14391:13.7: 13934:13.3:
: : : : : : : : : :
Total : 3368: 83862:24.9: 91194:27.0: 85462:25.4: 81259:24.1:
GROUP G :L.A.Zone 22 : 7139: 29973: 4.2: 39420: 5.5: 61475: 8.6: 61131: 8.6:
23 : 3287: 33956:10.3: 36989:11.2: 43785:13.3: 43743:13.3:33 : 1779: 39790:22.4: 40571:22.8: 44432:24.9: 44574:25.1:63 : 2515: 40896:16.2: 44677:17.8: 48255:19.2: 48071:19.1:
: Total : 14720: 144615:9.8: 161657: ii. 0: 197947:13.4:197519:13.4:
TABLE NO. 3 - CONTINUED
: AREA :1930 POPULTN:I940 POPULTN:I950 POPULTN:I953 POPULTN:: ACRES : NO. :DEN-: NO. :DEN-: NO. :DEN-: NOo :DEN-:: : : SITY: : SITY: : SITY: : SITY :: (1): (4):(5): (6):(7):
GROUP H :: L.A.Zone i :: 2 :: ll :: 58 :: Bell :: Huntington Pk. :: South Gate :: Maywood :
2282: 31875:14.0: 35655:15.6: 39341:17.2: 39589:17.3:2273: 20653: 9.1: 24773:10.9: 40251:17.7: 40773:18.0:2736: 63849:23.3: 69892:25.6: 79134:29.0: 78366:28.6:3929: 8902: 2.3: 9060: 2.3: 10643: 2.7: 10663: 2.7:4141: 11315~ 2.7: 25171: 6.1: 41527:10.0: 41218:10.0:1792: 25994:14.5: 29985:16.7: 30598:17.1: 30804:17.2:4475: 19632: 4.3: 26945: 6.0: 51116:11.4: 51473:11.4:
639: 6794:10.6: 9097:14.2: 11684:18.3: 12236:19.1:
: Total : 22267: 189014: 8.5: 230578:10.4: 304294:13.6:305122113.71
: GROUP I :: L.A.Zone 59 : 2244:: Compton : 8361:: Lynwood : 3069:: : :
: Total : 13674:
: GROUP J :: Bellflower : 6037:: Downey : 8141:: Paramount : 2602:
13471: 6.0:19764: 2.4:
7489: 2.4:
18874: 8.4:31689: 3.8:11594: 3.8:
31371:14.0:75742: 9.0:29456: 9.6:
31709 : 14. i :
86197:10.~:.31875:10. ,
40724 : 3" 0 : 62157 : 4.6 : 136569 : i0.0 : 1497821 ii. 0’:
6996: 1.2:800~: 1.0:3145: 1.2:
11774: 2.0:12538: 1.5:
6320: 2.4:
37892: 6.3:28402: 3.5:16088: 6.2:
62964:10.441929:5.223548: 9.O
: Total : 16780: 18145: i.i: 30632: 1.8: 82382: 4.9: 128441:7.7
: GROUP K :: Long Beach 2 536: 12592:23.5: 12133:22.6: 14080:26.3: 14378:26.8: 3 : 2031: 15787: 7.8: 18739: 9.2: 24937:12.3: 25444:12.5: 4 : 3745: 16888: 4.5: 18069: 4.8: 23596: 6.3: 29476:7.9: 5 : 4885: 12611: 2.6: 21247: 4.4: 46908: 9.6: 52202:10.7: 6 : 3061: 15826: 5.2: 18449: 6.0: 29446: 9.6: 30396:9.9
: 7 : 2061: 2713: 1.3: 5649: 2.7: 10404: 5.0: 10628:5.2: 8 : 5313: 1623: 0.3: 3562: 0.7: 18375: 3.5: 20088:3.8: i0 : 2158: 3916: 1.8: 7983: 3.7: 23690:11.0: 24269:11.3: ii : 2351: O: 0.0: O: 0.0: 2638: i.I: 5964: 2.5:: 12 : 613: 18483:30.2: 18176:29.6: 17005:27.8: 17370:28.3:
: 13 : 3467: 33414: 9.6: 33043: 9.5: 38553:11.1: 39538:11.4i: 14 : 944: 11873:12.6: 12344:13.1: 11643:12.3: 11873:12.61: 15 : 5458: 646: 0.i: 674: 0.i: 7299: 1.3: 11172: 3.4~
"1: Total : 36623: 146372: 4.0: 170068: 4.6: 268570: 7.3:318468 8.7
TABLE NO. B - CONTINUED
GROUP LHarbor CitySan PedroWilmington
Total
: A~EA: ACRES : NO. :DEN-: NO. : DEN-:: : :SITY: :SITY :: (1) : (2) (4)
: -L!714: 1608: 0.9: 2121: 1.2:: 13289: 36363: 2.7: 44086: 3.3:: 6796: 13665: 2.0: 15205: 2.2:
: 1930 POPULTN: 1940 POPULTN: 1950 POPULTN: 1953 POPULTN:NO. : DEN- : NO. : DEN- :
: SITY: : SITY:(6) :’(-#-~-: (8):-(~--:
6192: 3.6:56496: 4.3:25300: 3.7:
6729: 3.9:5748o: 4.3:27119: 4.0:
21799: 51636: 2.4: 61412: 2.8: 87988: 4.0: 91328: 4.2’:
: GROUP M: Torrance : 12720: 2780: 0.2: 3838: 0.3: 15251: 1.2: 19121: 1.5:
TotalZ
Z
Z: GRAhD TOTAL
O
< L. A Countyu "¯ Population
: :
: 12720: 2780: 0.2: 3838: 0.3: 15251: 1.2: 19121: i.~
330011:1334100 i 4.0:1626937:4.9::2284~63: 6.9:2473329: 7.5:
2208492 2785643 4151687 4650000
Study AreaPopulation in ~of County Poiulation
6o.4 58.4 55. o 53.3
Z<
KEY
INCREASE OF POPULATION
27
FIGURE NO. ~
PERCENTAGE RATE OF INCREASEBY POSTAL ZONES
WITHIN STUDY AREA 1940-I~0
As would be expected, percentage rates of increase during this
decade were the largest in those Postal Zones at either extremity of the
Study Area - in the entire San Fernando Valley and in the Zones easterly
and southerly of the industrial area from Vernon through Compton, with the
exception of the City of Long Beach and Signal Hill.
The "core" area around the Central Business Distric% and some of
Hollywood, showed for the most part moderate rates of increase ranging
up to lO-19 per cent~ but likewise showed some areas where a slight de-
crease in population occurred. This decrease was due to commercialization
and industrialization-for the most part with light industry-of former
residential areas~ and also because of the taking for freeway purposes~ in
recent years~ of substantial areas which had a high population density in
194o.
TABLE NC. ~ CONTI~JED
: GROUP D
: L. A. Zone:
:
:
:
:
:
: Total
: AREA :1953 POPULTN:I960 FOPULTN:I970 FOPULTN:I980 ~OPULTN::ACRES : NO. :DEN- : NO. :DEN-: NO. :DEN-: NO. :DEN-:: : :SITY : :SITY : :81TY : :SITY:
:’(i) : (2) : (3) : (4) : (5): (6) : (7):
4 : 2132 : 39362: 18.4:
5 : 1978 : 48906: 24.8:6 : 1066 : 32118: 30.1:
7 : 1684 : 41625: 24.8:18 : 1942 : 43267: 22.4:36 : 2319 : 30091: 13.0:
44600:21.0: 50200:23.6:55800:28.2: 63100:31.9:33200:31.1: 33000:31.0:43200:25.7: 42900:25.4:45700:23.6: 46600:24.0:31500:13.6: 34200:14.7:
(8) :(9) : :
55ooo:25.8:6~00o:34.9:32000:30.0:42000:24.9:47000:24.2:35ooo:15.~:
:11121:235369: 21.2: 254000:22.8: 270000:24.2: 28oooo:25.1:
: GROUP E: L.A. Zone:
:
:
:
:
: Total
12 : 2065 : 38000: 18.4:26 : 2798 : 53323: 19.0:31 : 2410 : 35456: 14.7:32 : 3160 : 25862: 8.2:39 : 2806 : 28322: i0.i:
: : : :
41 : 2276 : 20137: 8.8:42 : 2770 : 35307: 12.8:65 : 2811 : 28712: 10.2:
38900:18.8: 39900:19.3:55900:20.0: 59600:21.3:35900:14.9: 36400:15.1:27500: 8.7: 29800: 9.4:30700:10.9: 33800:12.0:
: : : :
21900: 9.6: 24500:10.8:36900:13.3: 38900:14.0:32300:11.5: 37100:13.2:
: : : :
41000:19.8:63000:22.5:37000:15.4:32000:10.1:37000:13.2:
: :
27000:11.9:41000:14.8:42000:15.0:
: :
:21096:265119: 12.6: 280000:13.3: 300000:14.2: 320000:15.2:
: GROUP F: L.A. Zone:
:
:
:
:
: Total
iB : 459 : 9808: 21.4:14 : 258 : 6728: 26.0:15 : 1072 : 27608: 25.8:17 ~ 531 : 23181: 43.6:21 : 1048 : 13934: 13.3:
: : : :
: 3368 : 81259: 24.1:
9300:20.3~6300:24.4:
27400:25.6:23100:43.5:13400:12.8:
8700:19.0:5(o0:22.1:
27300:25.5:23000:43.3:12700:12.1:
79700:23.6: 77400:23.0:
8000:17.5:5000:19.4:
27000:25.1:23000:43.3:12000:11.4:
: :
75000: 22. ~:
: GROUP G: L.A. Zone:
:
:
22 : 7139 : 61131: 8.6:23 : 3287 : 43743: 13.3:33 : 1779 : 44574: 25.1:63 : 2515 : 48071: 19.1:
60000: 8.4:42700:13.0:45500:25.6:49800:19.8:
5850O: 8.2:41400:12.6:46800:26.3:52400:20.8:
57000: 8.0:40000:12.2:48000:27.0:55000:21.9:
: Total : 14720 : 197519: 13.4: 199000:13.5: 199000:13. 5: 200000:13.6:
TABLE NO. 4 - CO~[fINUED
: GROUP H : APEA :1953 POPULTN:I960 POPULTN:I970 POPULTN:I980 POPULTN::DEN- : NO. :DEN-: NO. :DEN-: NO. :DEN-::SITY : :SITY: :SITY: :SITY:
:(5) (6) :-~-~-~ : (8) :(9) : : : : : :
43000:18.9: 43000:18.8: 45000:19.7:44700:19.7: 46800:20.6: 48000:21.1:77600:28.4: 76000:27.8: 75000:27.4:10900: 2.8: 10900: 2.8: ii000: 2.8:46600:11.3: 53000:12.8: 55000:13.3:35600:19.9: 41900:23.4: 45000:25.1:56600:12.4: 62800:14.0: 67000:15.0:13000:20.4: 13600:21.3: 14000:21.9:
:(3) : (4):
2282: 39589: 17.3:2273: 40773: 18.0:2736: 78366: 28.6:3929: 10663: 2.7:4141: 41218: i0.0:1792: 30804: 17.2:4475: 51473: 11.4:
639: 12236: 19.1:
: :ACRES : NO.: : :
: : (1) : (2): :
: L.A. Zone 1 :: 2 :: ii :: 58 :: Bell :: Huntington Pk. :: South Gate :: Maywood :
: Total : 22267:305122: 13.7: 328000:14.7: 348000:15.6: 360000:16.2:
GROUP I :L. A. Zone 59 :Compton :
:i~TM :
Total
2244: 31709: 14.1:8361: 86197: 10.3:3069: 31875: 10.4:
33000:14.7: 35000:15.6: 36000:16.0:99000:11.8: 112000:13.4: 118000:14.1:39000:12.7: 43000:14.0: 46000:15.0:
: 13674:149782: ll. 0 : 171000 : 12.5 : 190000 : 13.9 : 200000:14.6:
GROUP JBellflowerDowneyParamount
: 6037: 62964: I0.4:: 8141: 41929: 5.2:: 2602: 23548: 9.0:
68000:11.2:77000: 9.5:29000:11.1:
71000:11.8: 74000:12.3:98000:12.0: 115000:14.1:33000:12.7: 36000:13.8:
: Total : 16780 : 128441: 7.7 : 174000: i0.4 : 202000 : 12.0 : 225000 : 13.4:
: GROUP K :Long Beach 2 :
3~4:
5:6:
:
7:8:
i0 :ii :12 :
13 :14 :15 :
536: 14378: 26.8: 18500:34.5:2031: 25444: 12.5: 37500:18.5:3745: 29476: 7.9: 35700: 9.6:4885: 52202: 10.7: 62400:12.8:3061: 30396: 9.9: 34400:11.2:
: : : : :
2061: 10628: 9.2: 18300: 8.9:5313: 20088: 3.8: 34400: 6.5:2158: 24269: 11.3: 27400:12.7:2351: 5964: 2.5: 17600: 7.5:
613: 17370: 28.3: 19300:31.5:: : : : :
3467: 39538: 11.4: 43400:12.5:944: 11873: 12.6: 12600:13.4:
5458: 11172: 3.4: 35500: 6.5:
18800:35.1: 19000:35.5:51800:25.5: 61000:20.0:43800:11.7: 45000:12.0:67500:13.8: 69000:14.1:36500:11.9: 37000:12.1:
: : : :
19700: 9.6: 21000:10.2:49900: 9.4: 64000:12.0:27700:12.7: 28000:13.0:26700:11.4: 31000:13.2:19700:32.1: 20000:32.6:
: : : :
45500:13.1: 47000:13.6:12800:13.6: 13000:13.8:47600: 8.7: 65000:11.9:
: Total : ~6623:~18468: 8.7: 397000:10.8: 468000:12.8: 520000:14.2:
TABLE NO. 4 - CONTINUED
: GROUP L
: ;~arbor City: San Pedro: Wilmington:: Total
: AREA : 1993 POPULTN: 1960 POPULTN: 1970 POPULTN: 1980 POPULTN::ACRES : NO. :DEN- : NO. :DEN- : NO. :DEN- :: : :SITY: :SITY: :SITY:: (1) : (2) : (3): -U~--:~ : T~) : (7):: : : : : : : :
: 1714: 6729: 3.9: 8300: 4.8: 12900: 7.3:: 13289: 97480: 4.3: 63300: 4.8: 76400: 9.8:: 6796: 27119: 4.0: 29400: 4.3: 34100: 5.0:
NO. :DEN- ::SITY:
(8) : (9):: :
17000: 9.9:92000: 6.9:41000: 6.0:
: 21799: 91328: 4.2: i01000: 4.6: 123000: 5.6: 150000: 6.9:
: GROUP M :: Torrance : 12720: 19121: 1.5: 32000: 2.5: 53000: 4.3: 80000: 6.3:
: Total : 12720: 19121: 1.5: 32000: 2.5: 53000: 4.3: 80000: 6.3:
: GRAND TOTAL ;~30011~2473329: 7.5:2937700: 8.9:3528400:10.7:4139000:12.5:
L. A. County 4650000 55OOOOO 6600000 7500000Population
Study AreaPopulation in ~of County Population
53.3 53.4 53.4 56.4
Z<
and each quadrant was divided into Zones or Sectors of various radii,
2,5,8,13 and 20 miles, from the center of Downtown Los Angeles. These
quadrants and zones are shown on Figure No. 5, with the area and populat-
ion of each Zone within each quadrant, total area, and also population den-
sity in persons per acre for the Census years 1930, 19~0 and 1950 are like-
wise given in Table No. 5.
Densities outside of the 8-mile radius are still very low, and
encourage this trend towards single family residential living. That it is
continuing is borne out by data collected by the Los ~ngeles Regional Plann-
ing Commission. At the present time 66 per cent of the residential family
units in Los Angeles County are single fa~ly in character, and of family
units constructed between 19~0 and the present time, 77 per cent were single
fa~tly in character.
~o,puX~tlon Density
Metropolitan Los Angeles has always been characterized by a low
density of population. In the Spring of 1953, with a total County populat-
ion of ~,6~0,000 - 98 per cent of which lived within a 20-mile radius of
Downtown Los Angeles, the average population density of the area was 6.5
persons per acre. The density of the Study Area was slightly in excess of
this figure,being 7.~ persons per acre.
Of the 80 Postal Zones included in the Study Area, 13 had a population
density in excess of 20 persons per acre. The total population of these
13 Zones in the Spring of 1953 was 407,798 persons, or 16.5 per cent of the
total population of the Area. The highest population density within the
Study Area -43.6 persons per acre- occurred in Postal Zone 17, in the City
of Los Angeles, as of the Spring of 1953. There was one Postal Zone having
a population density in excess of 30 persons per acre at that time, and the
D C
QUADRANTFOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY
MAP
RUSCARDON ENGINEERS
FIGURE NO. 5
QUADRANTS AND SECTOPS WITHIN A 20-MI,LE RADIUSOF DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES
This map is to be used in connection with Table No. 5, which presents
the changing distribution of population within a 20-mile radius of Downtown
Los Angeles as of 1930-1940 and 1950.
Total population as of 1950 was fairly well distributed amongst the
four quadrants, ranging from 818,553, or 20.4 per cent of the total populat-
ion, within the 20-mile radius in the Northeast Quadrant, to 1,114,478 or
27.5 per cent of this total, in the Southwest Quadrant. Population increase
during this period was the least in the Northeast ©.uadrant, being 232,280
or 17.5 per cent of the total increase, and the greatest in the Southeast
Quadrant, being 348,746, or 26.3 per cent.
Population densities in 1950 ranged from 4.5 persons per acre in the
Northwest Quadrant to 8.4 persons per acre in the Southwest Quadrant. The
average density for the entire area within the 20-mile radius was 5.6 persons
per acre(areas for which population density was computed included all hill
and mountain~ as well as valley land within each Quadrant and Sector.)
The most ~ignificant facts developed in this study were -
a. In 1930, 63.2 per cent of the total population within the 20-mileradius lived within an 8-mile radius. By 1940, this percentagehad dropped to 58..5, and by 1950 it had dropped to 45.1.
b. Of the total population increase between 1940 and 1950 of 1,327,438within this 20-mile radius, 1,090,666 or 82.2 per cent(practically
5 out of 6) occurred outside of the 8-mile radius.
c. Should this trend in decentralization of population increaseduring the 1950-1960 decade-and there is every reason to believethat it will-provided adequate transportation is provided,population increase during the coming decade outside of the8-mile radius can be expected to be somewhat in excess of1,000,000 persons, and total population outside of this radiusby 1960 can be expected to be of the order of 3-¼ millionpeople, or about 60 per cent of total population within the20-mile radius.
z<
35
U
Z
0
PO 4~ F~O\ PO
.... :t’" y.,’" ~
remaining ll of the above 13 Postal Zones had a population density of
between 20 and 30 persons per acre.
A slight loss in population between the time of the 1950 Census and
the ~pring of 19~3~ occurred in 19 Postal Zones~ these having a total popula-
tion in 1950 of 721~726. This loss in population ~mounted to 17,527 persons,
or 7.7 per cent of the 1950 population of the Study Area. This loss occurred
~ in the Zones of highest density and was due essentially to (a) the industrial-
~ izatlon or commercialization of land use in these Zones of high population
d~n~lty~ or (b) the condemnation of a substantial area of land in these Zones
for use in construction of freeways.
Lo~tion of Areas of Low Population Density
It can be expected that the large population increases numerically
as well as percentage-wise would occur in areas having at the present time
l~ population densities. Figure Nos. 6 and V present by Postal Zones
the population density in persons per acre as of 19%, and estimated popu-
latlon density in persons per acre as of 1980~ and Figure ~ shows the per-
centage increase in population from 1940 to 19~0 in Census Tracts. It will
be noted in this last Figure that the high rates of population increase
during the above decade occurred in the San Fernando Valley and also south-
erly of Los ~mgeles~ with the exception of the City of Long Beach.
DENSITY OF POPULATION
FIGURE NO. 6
DENSITY OF POi~ULATION WITHIN STUDY AREABY POSTAL ZONES - 1993
This map shows that~ in spite of the fact that the greatest per-
cen~ge rate of population increase during the 1940-1950 decade occurred at
either extremity of the Study Area, population densities at such extremi-
ties are still relatively low~ and for this reason the large future in-
creases in population-provided that adequate transportation facilities
are provided-can be expected to occur in the areas of present and future
low population density.
Residential building lots-usually 50’ x 150’ in dimensions-result
in about 5 lots per acre With 3.3 persons per family, this results in
a saturation density of 16 persons per acre for strictly residential areas
of this character Since World War II~ however, fsmi!y size ~s increasing,
ar.d in new sukdivisicns cccupied Ly the younger Fopul~ation, sa.turat~on
densil;ies of from 17 to 19 per acre may be reached.
Allowing for local commercial buildings~ a few multiple dwellings~
schools and park~, saturation densities today of from 15 to 17 per acre may
occur when large areas are considered.
This map shows that there are still large areas with densities of
much less than these latter figures.
See Table No. 3
DENSITY OF POPULATION
39
FIGURE NO. 7
ESTI~TED FUTURE DENSITY OF POPULATIONWITHIN THE STUDY AREA - AS OF 1950
This map is based upon da~a in Table No. 5. Average population
density in 1950 is estimated as 12.5 persons per acre.
There are still a considerable number of Postal Zones where populat-
ion density in 1950 is estimated to be considerably below the saturation
point for single family residences. Zones in Groups D and F average in
excess of 20 persons per acre and in Groups E and H in excess of 15 persons
per acre.
Increased use of land for industrisl purposes in the area southerly
from Vernon to San Pedro Harbor may result in densities as ~iven in Table
No. 4~ approachin~ saturation by 1950., but there still will be considerable
room for population living in single family residences in those Zone Groups
having population densities of less than 12-13 persons per acre~ as of that
date.
See Table No. 4
IV
ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS
Z
Z
While this Report does not deal essentially with economic character-
istics of the general area~ it was thought advisable to present a small
amount, of material pertaining to this subject.
Median Value of Owner Occupied Single Family Homes - 1950
Figure No. $ shows by seven brackets the median value of single
family owner occupied homes within the Study Area. As with income, most
seotions in which the higher value homes occur are located outside of the
Study Area.
Median Income Per Family - i950
Figure No. 9 shows the range in family income in six different
brackets. Most of the high family income areas are without the Study Area.
Econom/c Indices
Figure No. i0 and Table No. 6 present certain Indices for the Los
Angeles Metropolitan Area over the past three or more decades. Gasoline
Sales are for the entire State of California, as such sales in individual
Counties of the State are not reported 3epara,tely.
®
MEDIAN
41
FIGURE NO. $
Y~IAN VALUE OF OWNER OCCUPIED SINGLE FAMILY HON~SWITHIN STUDY AREA - 1950
This factor is usually considered to be a very good indicator of the
economic status of residents within any area and may be considered to be so
in those Census Tracts having relatively low population densities, but a
comparison with Figure No. 9, Median Income per Family, will not show very
good correlation between Median Velue of Homes and Median Family Income, for
all Census Tracts,for the following reasons.
In many areas of hi~her population densities, a considerable number
of inhabitants therein live in multiple dwellings, and for the most part,
single family homes, while having a high value, house a pelatively small pro-
portion of the total population, with residents of multiple dwellings being
in asomewhat lower economic bracket. Consequently, high values of single
family owner occupied homes do not refLoct high income in these Tracts.
High population densities also occur in the older sections of the
area, where single family homes were built many years ago before present
costs levels existed. Furthermore, the market for such older homes is not
great, further resulting in lower values. In m~st of the areas where median
~alues are in excess of $ ~000, homes have been built in recent years during
the era. of high construction costs.
In the Census Tracts not colored, no data was given in the Census
Reports as to this factor.
MEDIAN
FIGURE NO. 9
MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME WITHIN THE STUDY AREA - 1950
This map indicates Median Family Income as of 1990, in each Census
Tract within the Study Area. In general, such income ranged from $ 2900
to $ 4900 per year, except in a small area in Holls~rood, within Downtown
Los Angeles and within an area southerly and southwesterly therefrom, in
the Watts area westerly of Lynwood, and in a small area along the Ocean in
Long Beach, in which areas Median Income ranged from under $ 1900 up to
$ 2500 per year.
Areas with Median Income in excess of ~ 4900 per year are few in
number within the Study Area, as most of such areas in the County occur in
Pasadena, Beverly Hills, Westwood, West Los Angeles, the "Malibu" and Palos
Verdes, all of which are outside of the Study Area.
Experience in other communities where mass rapid transit facilities
exist shows that areas having family incomes within the $ 2900 to $ 4500 per
year bracket develop a higher riding habit on such systems than those where
incomes are in higher or lower brackets.
In Census Tracts not colored, no data regarding income was given in
the Census Reports.
ECONOMIC INDICES-
500
METROPOLITAN LOS ANGELES VPOPULATION
-- ECONOMIC INDEXBANK DEBITS
450 ........... NO. PRODUCTION WKRS........... DEPT. STORE SALES
PASSENGER CARSKWH POWER SALES
400 BUILDING PERMITS -GASOLINE SALES
350
250
2O0
RUSCARDON ENGINEERS 1953
1935 1940 1945 850
FIGURE N0. i0
ECONOMIC INDICES-METROPOLITAN LOS ANGELES-1920-1953
Various Economic Indices pertaining to Metropolitan Los Angeles are
shown on this Figure. They all show an increase from 1920 through 1929~
except that the Index for Building Permits declined during the early 1930’s
and, with the exception of Building Permits and Number of Production Workers
¯ in Manufacturing and the Motion Picture Industry~ all showed a continued ri~
~ following the early 1930’s. The general rate of increase in all Indices,
except the foregoing, following this 1930-1935 period was considerably in
excess of the rate of increase of population.
The initial decline in Building Permits during the 1920’s probably
indicated that the local population was becoming adequately housed, and that
industrial plant construction had slowed down, while the decline in this
Index during the 1941-1943 period was due to lack of availability of building
materials and of construction labor .
The most significant fact in this graph is that, while the Index for
the number of production workers dropped sharply from in excess of 300% in
1943 to well below 200% in 1946, and then continued at around this level for
several years, other Indices~ the Areal Economic Index and the Indices of
Bank Debits, Department Store Sales, KWH Power Sales and Building Permits,
did not reflect this decline. This would indicate that production workers,
laid off from War Industry, still had money to spend and had foun~ Jobs at
which to earn such money.
The extremely high rise in Building Permits would indicate that many
of these former production workers secured employment in construction, resi-
dentlal and industrial, and the continued rise in KWH Power Sales, after a
short drop following 1944, also would indicate that Post-War industrial
aotivity recovered fairly rapidly. See Table No. 6.
44
TABLE NO. 6
ECONOMIC INDICES - LOS ANGELES AREA(1939-40 - 100%)
:YEAR:POPUL-:ECONOM-: BANK :DEPT. :NO. OF : KWH : BLDG. :PASSGR.:GASOL-:: : ATION: IC :DEBITS:STORE :PRODUC-: POWER:PERMIT : CAR : INE :
: INDEX : :SALES : TION : SALES:VALUAT-:REGIS- : SALES:
:(1)
:1919::1920:
: 22:: 23:: 24::1925:: :
:1926:27:
: 28:: 29::1930:: :
:1931:: 32:: 33:: 34::1935:
:1936:: 37:: 38:: 39:
z
: : : :WORKERS: : I0N :TRATION: :(2) (3) (4) : (5) : (6)
: : : : :
32.7: 37.0 : 36.2: 36.1: 40.9 :33.6: 50.6 : 52.1: 49.3: 41.6 :
: : : : :
39.2: 50.0 : 51.7: 51.4: 36.9 :44.1: 59.2 : 59.8: 56.7: 40.8 :49.0: 77.9 : 80.7: 70.3: 48.8 :59.2: 74.7 : 85.1: 73.4: 47.2 :62.4: 80.1 : 91.0: 79.9: 51.3 :
: : : : :66.1: 85.7 : i00.4: 85.0: 57.2 :69.0: 89.5 : 107.0: 89.0: 59.2 :72.1: 93.9 : 123.8: 90.1: 60.7 :74.7:100.9 : 140.3: 91.8: 68.179.3: 88.6 : 115.8: 85.9: 59.9
: : : :81.8: 73.9 : 88.7: 76.7: 51.383.8: 57.9 : 62.8: 59.1: 44.583.0: 55.5 : 58.0: 55.2: 47.185.5: 60.6 : 62.1: 59.6: 57.385.7: 71.8 : 77.6: 70.0: 66.6
: : : :88.0: 86.9 : 97.5: 82.1: 78.193.6: 95.4 : 105.7: 88.8: 90.397.5: 89.4: 93.6: 85.3: 83.6
(7) (8) (9) : (lO):: : : :
: 23.2 : : :: 46.8 : : :: : : :
: 60.2 : 16.8 : :: 96.0 : 20.7 : :: 151.2 : 28.3 : :: 123.1 : 40.2 : 38.9:: 126.1 : 45.6 : 43.8:: : : :
: 109.1 : 49.7 : 49.3:54.7:102.3 : 55.0 : 55.5:62.1: 91.0 : 59.0 : 59.5:72.1: 87.0 : 64.1 : 67.0:73.5: 66.0:: 76.3 : 71.2:
: : : :
4: 16.2 : 79.1 : 71.8:67.1: 17.2 : 75.8 : 71.3.:70.0: 17.4 : 75.6 : 71.3:74.9: 38.9 : 76.6 : 79.8:
: : : :83.8: 67.2 : 82.4 : 87.1:91.0: 74.6 : 89.0~,: 92.1:92.7: 83.5 : 95.8 : 92.0:
98.3: 95.5 : 96.4: 93.7: 92.4 : 97.4: 93.5 : 96.2 : 97.8::1940: i00.0:104.5 : 103.6: 106.3:107.6 : 102.6:106.5 : i00.0 : 102.2:: : : : : : : : : ::1941: 103.0:130.2 : 125.0: 125.1:155.7 : i18.1:141.3 : 107.2 : 114.7:: 42: 107.1:153.9 : 141.9: 140.7:225.2 : 135.8: 68.9 : i15.i : 98.8:: 43: 111.8:194.5 : 182.1: 167.4:303.6 : 170.2: 45.0 : 110.8 : 81.7:: 44: 115.7:211.4 : 214.4: 189.1:288.2 : 189.6: 66.9 : 106.2 : 83.5::1945: 120.0:215.9 : 251.7: 213.7:225.5 : 177.3:120.9 : 107.0 : 103.1:: : : : : : : : : : ::1946: 125.1:243.6 : 306.4: 277.7:183.9 : 180.8:319.1 : 108.5 : i39.5:: 47: 130.3:261.4 : 323.7: 313.7:186.1 : 198.4:395.6 : 117.3 : 152.8:: 48: 136.0:279.8 : 351.0: 334.9:186.2 : 216.1:493.8 : 131.0 : 163.0:: 49: 142.0:269.2 : 344.9: 305.5:183.8 : 232.0:419.3 : 140.0 : 170.O~,:1950: 149.0:308.2 : 388.0: 321.8:204.8 : 244.2:610.9 : 151.8 : 182.0:: : : : : : : : : : ::1951: 152.6:334.5 : 441.4: 322.8:243.5 : 276.5:517.1 : 168.1 : 198.0::1952: 158.0:361.9 : 481.2: 353.4:271.5 : 304.0:600.0 : 178.0 : 211.3:
z
z
TABLE NO. 6 CONTINUED
Notes
All Indices refer to average of 1939-1940 as 100%,except population, which is as of April l, 1940.Population for 1930-1940-1950 is for April 1st -in other years for January 1st.
Sources
Col. 2 - All years except 1920-1930-1940 and 1950Research Dept. L.A. Chamber of Commerce.Other years - U.S. Census.
Cols. 3-4-5-6-8 - Research Department - Security FirstNational Bank of Los Angeles. Col. 6- No. ofProduction Workers includes only workers engagedin Production and is exclusive of Administrative,Clerical and other employees.
Col. 7 Research DepartmentCommerce.
Los Angeles Chamber of
Col. 9 - California. State Department of Motor Vehicles
Col.10 - Automobile Club of Southern California
100% Averages
CoS. 2 - Population 1940
4 - Bank Debits 1939
2,785,643
1940 $ 10,424,552,000
6 - No. Production Workers 1939-1940Monthly - 160,608
7 - KWH Power Sales 1939-1940
8
9
i0 -
Average
3,780,573,000
Building Permits 1939-1940 $ 219,832,500
Passenger Auto Registration 1939-1940 - 1,019,293
Motor Vehicle Fuel Sales - State of California1939-1940 - 1,698,041,000 gallons
V
PASSENGER AUTOMOBILES
Los Angeles County has the greatest density of passenger automobile
registration - expressed as the number of persons per registered automobile-
or conversely - as the number of automobiles per 1000 population, of any
large metropolitan area in the United States, which means in the World. This¯
~~ fact~ the relatively low population density~ and the prevalence of single
u¯ family residential living, are all closely related.
Densit~ of Passenger Automobile Registration in i0 LargestCounties in the United States 1951-19~2
As of 19~1-19~2~ there were 2.76 persons per passenger automobile in
Los Angeles County, or 363 passenger automobiles per 1000 County population.
The Five Boroughs of New York City had 7.03 persons per passenger automobile,
or 1~2 automobiles per 1000 population.
D~n~t~ of Passenger Automobile Registration - Los Angeles Count~Pa~t and Estimated Future
In 1953, there were an estimated 1,895~000 passenger automobiles
registered in Los Angeles County, or 2.~3 persons per automobile-412 per
~~ i000 of County population. This increase in the number of passenger auto-
¯ ~l:~blles has been much greater than the increase in population~ as is shown
on Figure No. 12 and T~le No. 8.
Statutor~ Requirements for Garages in Residential Buildings
Ever since 1930, the City of Los Angeles has specified by Ordinance
that one garage or storage space for an automobile must be provided for
every family dwelling unit constructed, whether such unit be a single family
or a multiple dwelling. Today no one thinks of building a single family
YorkPhila-
Cook
ho~a
~7
TABLE NO, 7DENSITY OF PASSENGER AUTOMOBILES
IN TEE i0 LARGEST COUNTIES AS
:RANK: COUNTY : PRINCIPAL : PERSONS : AUTOS :: IN : : CITY : PER : PER ::DEN-: : : AUTOM0- : 1000 ::SITY: : : BILE :POPULATION:
: 1 : Los Angeles : Los Angeles : 3.76 : 363 :: : : : : :: 2 : Wayne : Detroit : 3.27 : 3O6 :: : ! : : :
: 3 : Cuyahoga : Cleveland : 3.42 : 292 :: ; : : : :: 4 : Middlesex : Lowell : 4.13 : 242 :: : : : : :
: 5 : St. Louis : St. Louis : 4.23 : 236 :: : : : ! :: 6 : Cook : Chicago : 4.26 : 232 :: : : : : :: 7 : Allegheny : Pittsburg : 4.72 : 212 :
: $ : B~.Ittr~c : Baltimore : 5.07 : 197 :: ~ : : : : :: 9 : Pbil~delphia: Philadelphia : 5.95 : 168 :: : : : :: i0 : N~wYork : New York : 7.05 .: 142 :Source - Automobile Facts and Figures - 1953
0 1 2 3 ~ 5 6
7.03
RUSCARDON ENGINEERS 1953
REGISTERED PASSENGER CARS AND POPULATIONFOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY
~,/,~/ REGI~TERI:’D P~SSENGEr~3ARS~ IN COUNT’S;
hO
( 0.¢192 0 1930 1940 1980 1960 1970 1980
¯ -,,,, ,,,,,, ESTIMATED
RUSGARDON ENGINEERS 1953
48
FIGURE NO. 12
PAST, PRESENT AND ESTIMATED FUTURE PASSENGER AUTOMOBILEREGISTRATION IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY 1921 - 1980
Total number of passenger automobiles registered in Los Angeles County
have shown a continuous rise since 1921, with the exception of a few years
in the early 1930 decade, during the Depression, and also during the early
years of World War II, when the number declined slightly.
The mumber of persons per passenger automobile also continuously de-
clined , except for these two periods, and in 1953 reached a low figure
(a high density) of 2.43 persons per car, or 412 passenger automobiles per
lO00 County population.
The curve of persons per car, from the trend of the curve following
1946, might have been projected from a high of 3.16 in that year down to
around 1.5 in 1980~ but it is believed that other factors will come into
play, economics, availability of garage accomodations, traffic congestion,
which will prevent it from dropping to this low figure. Some reduction can
be expected, however, and the curve has been flattened out by 1970 at a
figure of 2.1 p~rsons per car. This indicates a total passenger automobile
registration of 3,700,000 passenger cars by 1980, about twice the present
n~mber.
... See Table No. 8
TAB ~LE NO. 8
LOS ANGELES COUNTY PASSENGER CARREGISTRATION AND POPULATION
1921- 1953
: YEAR : PASSENGER : COUNTY : POP’N. : PASSENGER :: : CA~S :P0~UIATION: PER : CAPS :: : REGISTERED: : PASS. : 1000 :: : : : CAR : POP’N. :
: (1) (2) (3) : (4) : : : :
1921 : 171624 : I09250C : 6.37 : 157 :22 : 211000 : 1229490 : 5.82 : 172 :
23 : 288000 : 1336130 : 4.64 : 216 :24 : 410000 : 1648670 : 4.02 : 249 :
1925 : 465000 : 1737570 : 3.74 : 268 :26 : 5o6ooo : 184255o : 3.64 : 275 :27 : 560000 : 1925010 : 3.43 : 291 :28 : 601637 : 2010170 : 3.34 : 299 :29 : 654100 : 2081070 : 3.18 : 314 :
: : : :
1930 : 776677 : 2208492 : 2.85 : 352 :31 : 866264 : 2278580 : 2.63 : 381 :32 : 805787 : 2336060 : 2.90 : 345 :
33 : 772399 : 2308870 : 2.99 : 334 :34 : 770877 : 2381080 : 3.09 : 324 :
: : : :
1935 : 779915 : 2389680 : 3.06 : 326 :36 : 838983 : 2453970 : 2.93 : 342 :37 : 907223 : 2609270 : 2.88 : 348 :38 : 975392 : 2718780 : 2.79 : 359 :3~ : 979974 : 2738390 : 2.80 : 358 :
: : : :
1940 : 1019293 : 2785643 : 2.73 : 366 :41 : 1093290 : 2866900 : 2.62 : 381 :42 : 1174358 : 2985000 : 2.54 : 394 :43 : 1127538 : 3108100 : 2.76 : 362 :44 : i082809 : 3221400 : 2.98 : 336 :
: : : :
1945 : 1088930 : 3345900 : 3.08 : 326 :46 : i103914 : 3486600 : 3.16 : 317 :47 : 1196319 : 3632000 : 3.04 : 329 :48 : 1333718 :: 3791900 : 2.84 : 352 :49 : 1426073 : 3954700 : 2.78 : 360 :
: : : :
1950 : 1543647 : 4151687 : 2.69 : 372 :51 : 1712545 : 4250000 : 2.48 : 403 :52 : 1816643 : 4400000 : 2.42 : 413 :
53 : e 1895000 : 4600000 : 2.43 : 412 :¯ e Estimate
TABLE NO. 8 - CONTINUED
LOS ANGkn,I~S COUNTY PASSENGER CARREGISTRATION AND POPULATION
Z
0
Col. i - Number of Passenger Cars Registered as ofJanuary 1st of Year Sho~n. This figurereflects the total number of Registrationsduring the previous 12 months period.
Source - California Department ofMotor Vehicles
Col. 2 - Estimated County Population as ofJanuary Ist of Year Sho~n~ except yearsof Decennial Census when population is asof April l~th.
Source - Census Years U.S. CensusOther Years - Research Dept.
Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce
residence without at least a two car garage~ as the place would neither be
salable nor rentable. Today every sixth family owns two cars, and at the
rate that this multiple ownership is increasing, it will not be long before
this will be reduced to two cars for every fifth family.
Effect of Improved Transit Facilities uDon Density ofPassenger Automobile Registration
It is not believed that improved mass rapid transit facilities will
have any great effect on this trend in multiple ownership of automobiles.
The widespread and increasing decentralization of shopping centers through-
out the MetropolitanArea will tend to maintain the trend. Many workers
will still use their cars to reach transit stations. Reduction of long
distance automobile travel, which the provision of mass rapid transit facil~
ties will tend to encourage, combined with an increase in mileage of freeways
should reduce the present congestion on arterial highways, and encourage
their wider use.
Should the family car be left at home, the housewife will find many
additional needs for its use. It is the teen-age generation, and those a
few years older, however, who are largely responsible for this multiple
ownership of cars. These young people have their friends, and the parents
have theirs~ and the two groups are different and usually live in different
localities. Automobiles pass through a number of ownerships today in their
total life of 12 to 14 years, and the old age of many of them is spent in the
hands of this younger generation.
Week-end travel to recreational areas mountains, beaches and desert-
is very extensive. Seldo~ do parents and young people go to the same place,
and this is a strong argument for the second car in the family.
The strongest argument, however, lies in She fact that passenger
automobile density (expressed as number of such automobiles per lO00
population) varies inversely with population density (expressed as number
of residents per acre). As long as this area maintains its low population
density~ it will maintain its high passenger automobile density.
VI
THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT OF LOS ANGELES
Up until about 1920, the Central Business District of Los Angeles,
or Downtown Los Angeles, as it is commonly known, was the dominating business
conter of Metropolitan Los Angeles. Practically all office buildings, all
department stores~ specialty shops, and other retail stores, except the
usual neighborhood stores, were located there °
Such District is normally taken to extend from Sunset Boulevard on
the North to Pico Boulevard on the South, and from Figueroa Street on the
West to Los Angeles Street on the East, although various other boundaries,
closely approximating these, have also been used.
Number of Motor Vehicles Nntering Downto~n Los Angelesfrom Past Cordon Counts 1923 - 1950
Table.No 9 presents the results of various cordon counts of motor’
vehicles entering the Central District, summarized in three groups of Streets
on the East and West sides, and into two groups on the North and South sidea
Number of Motor Vehicles Entering Downtown Los Angeles-1950
Figure No. 13 presents in detail the number of motor vehicles enter°
in, Downtown Los Angeles in 1950, by streets of entry and departure.
Decentralization in Retail Trade - 1929-1948
In 1920, Los Angeles City had a population of 576,000 and the County
of 936,000. By 1930, the City population had increased to 1,238,048 and
the Ceunty population to 2,208,492. The increase in City population was
662,000 and in County population was 1,272,000. At the same time passenger
automobile registration had increased from 171,624 in 1921 to 776,677 in
1930, or by 605,053. No figures are available as to the location of tke
Z
Z0
DIAmOnD 3T. 30963606
FIRST ST. 105048465
SECOND ST. 963410933
TMIRD ST. 9594
14941976
CENTRALBUSINESS
DISTRICT
;Ea,t S1~ ; 1142511 101647 : 218898;
~uth SI~: 71808~ 73511 ~ 1480181
iWe,t Si~ : 138179~ 146951 : 288130~
: ~tal : 384892; 385041 : 778933:
3597 SUNSETBLVD.4938
11670 ALISE) ST.9493
2154 CO~ER.CIAL ST.3363
3612 M~RKET ST.2621
8458 FIRST ST.8261
6039 SECOND ST.7207
11353 THIRD ST.5798
815 BOYD ST.668
14954 SIXTH ST.
6313 S~VENTH ST.6072
11495 EIGHTH ST.5338
8451 NINTH ST.6702
6999 OLYMPIC BLVD.8788
3978 ELEVENTH ST.33976728 T~EL~ ST.5025
5618 PICO 9LVD.4674
SOURCEDEPT. OF STREET TRAFFICENGINEERING, CITY OF
NUMBER OF VEHICLES ENTERINGCENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT6~00 A.M. TO I0~00 P.M. ON AVERAGE WEEKDAY - 1950
RUSCARDON ENGINEERS
ENTERINGLEAVING
~ 12OO0I~ VEHICLES
1953
FIGURE NO. 13
NUMBER OF MOT(Z~ VE_HICL_E. S ENTERING THECENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT OF LOS ANGELES -1950
This is the last complete Cordon Count made of motor vehicles enter-
ing the Central Business District of Los Angeles, although some counts have
been made on individual streets since 1950. This count was made prior to the
opening of the Hollywood or Harbor Freeways to traffic. At the present writ-
ing they are not yet open throughout their entire length, but are used to a
substantial extent by local traffic The Hollywood Freeway, since it has
been partially opened, has taken a substantial amount of traffic from Sunset
Boulevard, Temple, First, Second and even Third Streets¯
Figueroa Street carried the largest volume of traffic, both in and out-
bound, this being essentially traffic from Pasadena and neighboring communit-
ies travelling to it over the Arroyo Seco Freeway. Olympic Boulevard carries
traffic from Santa Monica and Western Los Angeles directly into the lower
part of Downtown Los Angeles. At this date, Fifth and Sixth Streets were
one-way streets, and recently Eighth and Ninth Streets have been made one-way.
The heavy traffic along the East and West sides of the area is due n~
alone to the greater length of these sides, but likewise to the fact that a
great deal of through traffic moves in this direction, between residential
areas to the West and wholesale and industrial areas to the East of the Cent-
ral Business District¯ A study made in 1939 indicated that 35 per cent of
the traffic entering the Central Business District in an East and West dir-
ection moved directly across it without stopping¯ Eliminating this percen-
tage of through moving vehicles, from entering and leaving traffic, the numbe~
of vehicles entering and leaving across the East and West boundaries, in spit~
of the far greater length of the latter, is but about l0 per cent greater
than those entering and leaving on the North and South sides.
z
z
~7
increase in areal population between 1920 and 1930, but it undoubtedly
occurred in peripheral areas. Distances had become great, traffic con-
gestion had increased and decentralization of trade was under way.
The trend in this decentralization is shown in Table No. 10, the
M~Jor Economic Areas being indicated on Figure No. l~.
Another significant fact in connection with the decentralization of
Downtown Los Angeles is the fact that but three office buildings have beem
constructed in Downtown Los Angeles since 1930, all in recent years~ while
many older buildings have been torn down to make way for parking facilities.
Number of Persons Entering Downtown Los AngelesDuring an Average Week Day 192~ to 1980
From the cordon counts of motor vehicle traffic made between 192~ and
19~0, from scattered data as to persons per passenger automobile, and from
other scattered traffic counts, as well as from data supplied by the Pacific
Electric Railway and the Los Angeles Transit Lines~ it has been possible to
estimate the number of persons entering DowntownLos Angeles during a 12-houx
week day at various times between 1924 and 19~3.
When these numbers of persons enterlngw~eexpressed as the numbers
per lO00 County population at each date, a trend curve developed which allow-
ed a projection of the number entering per 1000 County population up to the
year 1980.
If present conditions as to transportation and parking facilities con-
tinue it can then be assumed that Downtown Los Angeles has become stabilized
Every available ~acant parcel of land not occupied by a building is use~ for
a parking lot, and a number of parking garages have been constructed and are
heavily used. The only ma~uer by which parking capacity in the area can be
increased will be to construct more parking garages~ and/or to tear down
more existing buildings and convert the area that they occupy to parking
lots or garages.
RESEDAVAN NUY~ BURBANI
NORTHHOLLYWOOD ~)
SANTA
EL 8E
PASADENA MONROVIAARCADIA
VERNON
SOUTHGATE
WHITTIER
NORW
PARAMOUNTR
WEST COVINA
PUENTE
TORR-ANCE
(~) LAKEWO0[
PAL08VERDE8
WILMING- LONG BEACHTON
8AN
,,, _ . , RUSCARDON ENGINEER8 1953
FIGURE NO. 14
ECONOMIC AREAS - LOS ANGELES COUNTY
This map locates the Major Economic Areas within the County for
which volume of Retail Sales are shown in T~.ble No. 10.
Data presented in this Table emphasizes the extent to which decent-
~ ralization of Retail Trade has taken place since 1929 in Los :~ngelesZ
~ County. In that year, out of every $ 1.O0 spent in Retail Sales in the¯
County almost 30¢ was spent in Downtown Los ~ngeles, while in 1948, this
30¢ had dropped to slightly more than ii¢.
The Northeast, East, Central, including Downtown Los ~ngeles,
Hollywood, and the balance of the County, all had lost their relative
positions as retail trading centers between 1929 and 19~8 ,
Downtown Los ~ngeles, as considered in these figures, extends from
Temple Street southerly to Jefferson Boulevard, while normally it is con-
sidered to extend from Sunset Boulevard southerly to Pico Boulevard .
Z¯
Volume of trade between Temple and Sunset, and between Pico and Jefferson
is relatively small.
See Table No. l0
Z
Z
TABLE N0. ] O
TOTAL RETAIL SALES - LCS ANGELES COUNTYBY MAJOR ECONOMIC AREAS
: :
:AREA: LOCATION:
: 1 : San Fernando Valley: 2 : Glendale: 3 : Pasadena: 4 : Pomona - Foothill: 5 : Alhambra
:
: 6 : Northeast
: 7 : East: 8 : Central: 8a: Downtown Los Anaeles
: 9 : Wilshire: l0 : Hollywood: :
: ll : Beverly Hills-Westwood: 12 : Santa Monica Bay: 13 : Adams - Inglewood: 14 : Southeast: 15 : Whittier - Norwalk
:
: 16 : South Coast: 17 : Balance of County
:
:
:
TOTAL PETAIL SALES $000 OMITTED1929 : 1933 : 1935-:
28217: 14818: 25096:46463: 27426: 37692:60146: 28808: 45003:32845: 16519: 24000:23088: 12831: 21015:
: : :
40596: 24402: 37820:767E6: 34345: 41148:
1939 : 1948~]9~ 9 4~:: :
53138: 324547:105062927: 200891: 3~359718: 211339: 23442737: 207850: 53234625: 123451: 434
:
39415: 106909: 16386085: 247230: 223
441792:196608:235803: 256932: 629723: 42.5:381046:165758:205302: 223071: 505240: 32.~:46750: 39378:5-~: 87635: 305169: 553 :87315: 44802: 70061: I00142: 256140: 193 :
: : : : : :
15423: 8370: 21991.: 44738: 158811: 930 :42260: 21632: 33790: 54181: 225886: 435 :97835: 56778: 83452: 137556: 515923: 428 :65029: 39771: 58893: 104273: 406055: 525 :11882: 4426: 7534: 25481: 127012: 970 :
: : : : : :
106305: 57225: 86632: 116278: 429592: 304 :64692: 31962: 56006: 8589: 35733: -45 :
: : : : ::Total Los Angeles Co. :.1287304:660101:942103:1314450:4512261: 251 :
: : : : : : : :: ~ 1929 Sales : i00.0: 51.4: 73~3: 102.0: 350.~:
6o
TABLE NO. i0 - CONTINUED
U
~ OF COUNTY TOTAL
: :
: AREA: LOCATION: :
: 1 : San Fernando Valley2 : Glendale3 : Pasadena
: 4 : Pomona -Foothill: 5 : Alhambra
:
: 6 : Northeast7 : East
: 8 : Central: 8a: Downtown Los Angeles: -~9 : Wilshire: 10 : Hollywood
:
iI : Beverly Hills-Westwood: 12 : Santa Monica Bay: 13 : Adams - Inglewood: 14 : Southeast: 15 : Whittier - Norwalk
:
: 16 : South Coast17 : Balance of County
:
PERCENT OF COUNTY TOTAL: 1929 : 1933 : 1935: : :
: 2.2: 2.2:: 3.6: 4.2:: 4.7: 4.4:: 2.6: 2.5:
1.8: 1.9:: :
3.2: 3.7:6.0: 5.~:
34.3 : 29.8 :29.6 : 25.1 :
3.6 : -6,0 :6.8: 6.8:
: :
1.2: 1.3:3.3: 3.3:7.6: 8.6:5.1: 6.0:0.9: 0.7:
: :
8.3: 8.7:5.0: 4.8:
: :
: Total Los Angeles Co.: i00.0 :
: 1939 : 1948 :: :
2.7: 4.0: 7.2:4.0: 4.8: 4.5:4.8: 4.5: 4.7:2.6: 3.3: 4.6:2.2: 2.6: 2.7:
: :
4.0: 3.0:4.4: 6.5: 5.5:
25.0: 19.5: 14.0:21.8: 17.0: 11.2:6.0 : ~7 : 6.8":7.4: 7.6: 5.7:
: : :
2.3: 3.4: 3.9:3.6: 4.1: 5.0:8.9 : i0.5 : 11.4 :6.3: 7.9: 9.0:0.8: 1.9: 2.8:
: : :
9.2: 8.8: 9.9:5.9 : 0.7 : 0.8 :
¯ : :
lO0.O : lO0.O : lO0.O : lO0.O :
8o~roe -
Research Department - Security First National Bank ofLos Angeles
NUMBER OF PERSONS ENTERING THE CENTRALBUSINESS DISTRICT OF LOS ANGELES , DURING12 HOURS ON AN AVERAGE WEEKDAY
TOI’~L PER~ONS ENTERING...."
: "..
NO. PER~O~ ~"ENT ~RIN(I B~ ~" ,
~A~ TOM~BILr/
, /~COUIITY POPI~LATION
, ~ ’ __~
¯ ,~e ,
,ooo c.~ux~Y ""-.... ""--......l ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ "
RUSCARDON ENGINEERS I
FIGURE N0. 15
NUMBER OF PERSONS ENTERING THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTOF LOS ANGELES DURING 12 HOURS ON ANAVERAGE WEEKDAY
1924 to 1980
This Figure is presented in connection with Table No. ll, which is
based upon available cordon counts and other traffic counts adjacent to the
Central District, upon data from the Pacific Electric Railway and the Los¯
~~Angeles Transit Lines~ and from a 1944 Report of the Los Angeles County
¯ Regional Planning Co~ssion.
The curve expressing total number of persons entering the Central
IDistrict per i000 total County population shows a very definite downward
~ trend. In 1924, the number entering was equal to ~13 per 1000 County pop-
m ulation. At the present time this number has dropped to i~2 per 1000, and
~z by 1980 it is estimated that it will be about 80 per 1000. This last
~ figure, naturally~ is based upon the assumption that transportation and
u parking facilities remain at about what they are today.
~ A further interesting fact, based upon this projection an~ upon
estimated future County population~ is that there have not been~ nor will
there be - up to 1980 less than 600,000 nor more than 700,000 persons
entering the Central District daily~ and that in 1980~ there will be fewer
¯ persons entering such District daily than have entered it since 192~, when
County population was slightly in excess of 1,~00,000 persons.
Bee Ta.ble No. ll
62
TABLE NO. ii
NUMBER OF PEEBONS E~I’ERING THECENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT OF LOB ANGELES
DURING AN AVERAGE 12 HOURWEEKDAY
DATE : PERSONS ENTERING : POPULATION : PERSONS :: BY AUTO : BY PUBLIC : TOTAL : LOS ANGELES: ENTERING :: : TRANSP’N. : ENTERING : COUNTY : PER 1000 :: : : : :POPULATION :
: :
:1924 Jan. l: 239855¯ :
:1931 Dec. l: 434986
3 :1938 Fall : 384788u : :
i :
;1947 : 455000
:1950 : 446000
m :1953 : 470000
~ :1960 :Z
z :1970 :
< :1980 :
383145 : 623000 : 1509318 : 413: :
262256 : 697242 : 2273670 : 307: :
239512 : 624290 : 2730900 : 228: : :
246440 : 642933 : 2995743 : 214: :
240500 : 695500 : 3632000 : 192: :
247450 : 693450 : 4151687 : 167: :
211300 : 681300 : 4600000 : 148: :
: 700°000 : 5500000 : 128
: 660000 : 6600000 : i00: :
: 600000 : 7900000 : 80
z
1960 - 1970 - 1980 - Estimated
Cordon bounded by Sunset Blvd., Los Angeles St.,Pico Blvd., Figueroa St.
Figures fc 1924, 1931, 1938 and 1941 - Reports onBusiness Districts, L.A. County Regional Planning Comm.
Figures for 1947, 1950 and 1953 are estimates, based uponadjusted Motor Vehicle Cordon Counts, and datafurnished by Pacific Electric Company andLos Angeles Transit Lines.
All Cordon Counts adjusted to a 12 hour basisFactor of 1.45 persons per auto used with Cordon Counts
to develop number of persons entering by automobile
VII
TBAFFIC
Increase in Motor Vehicle Traffic - 1948 to 1953
Up until the 1930-1940 decade, traffic patterns in the Metropolitan
Los Angeles Area. were primarily radial in direction, like the spokes of a
wheel. Since that time, decentralization of business~ extension of the
populated area and increased industrialization in outlying sections, parti-
cularly since the early 1940’s,have resulted in a substantial increase in
circumferential traffic.
Many automobile riders who formerly drove through the Central
District from one side of the Metropolitan Area to the other now drive
around it Morning and evening peaks made up of industrial workers are.
creating conditions which are approaching, if not reaching congestion.
Plate IV presents the traffic flow-in both directions-on certain State and
other highways in the area for the year 1948, and-in a different color,- the
increase in such traffic during the five year period 1948 to 1953.
The shortage of passenger automobiles, created by cessation of pro-
duction during We~d War II, had not beeneliminated by 1948, there being
1,333,718 passenger automobiles registered in Los Angeles County in that ye~.
This number had increased to 1,895,000 or 42.2 per cent by 1953. While pop-
ulation of the County had only increased by 22.5 per cent during this 5-year
period. While in future years, the increase in number of passenger automoo
biles may be expected to follow more closely the increase in population,
decentralization of the latter may be expected to cause a substantial increas~
in this circumferential traffic, unless provision is made to handle a consid-
erable amount of such traffic on mass rapid transit facilities.
Southbound Passenger Automobiles and PassengersTravelling over Cahuenga Pass - July 1953From 6:00AM to 10:00PM
This count~ made in connection with the annual traffic count of the
California Highway Commission, was primarily to determine car riding habits,
from which the number of persons leaving the San Fernando Valley during a
16-hour day could be estimateed. Because the Freeway over Cahuenga Pass is
not as yet connected with the Hollywood Freeway-although such connection is
expected to occur early in 19~-it was not possible to determine the pro-
portion of these passengers coming from the Valley who travelled directly
to Downtown Los Angeles, and those who followed a circumferential route
around this area to points on the opposite side~ or who travelled southerly
or westerly from Hollywood.
Distribution of Rail and Vehicular Travel over 24 Hours
Transit riding habits, shown on Figure No. 17~ are typical of those
in large Metropolitan Areas in this Country~ except that morning and evening
peaks are sharper and mid-day and evening traffic is smaller, these charact~-
istics being undoubtedly due to the high passenger automobile registration
and decentraliza-~on of retail trade.
Freeway Construction Program,
Figure No. 18 shows the present state of Freeway development in
Metropolitan Los Angeles~ and probable rate of future Freeway construction
under present methods of financing. The present system of financing high-
ways, based upon State collected gasoline and user taxes, with some Federal
allocations, with these revenues being allocated to Cities, Counties and the
State system according to a formula, has been in effect for three decades.
This system operated very well while the number of registered motor
vehicles was relativel~ small~ but today, when freeway construction is
SOUTHOVER
~.oo
BOUND PASSENGERS ANDCAHUENGA PASS
TRAFFIC TO CAHUENGA
TRAFFIC TO HIGHLAND AVE.
TOTAL PA88ENGER8
PASSENGER CARS
,0 0PASSE ~IGERS PER CAR
6 7 8 9 I0 II I 2 4 6 7 8 9A.M. NOON P.M.
I0
-~ ,o.o ../,.-~ ---’~_ ,-
o~ ~.0 ~ ,~
.0 ~’~ ,16 HO IR TOTAL F’ASSEflGERS6 7 8 9 I0 II 12 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I0A.M, NOON P.M.
I 8,0
¢o
..II-oI-
I o,o
"r 8 9 I0 II
~/,~ 16 I-OUR I’OTAL CARS~
NOON P, M,
RUSCARDON ENGINEERS
FIGURE NO. 16
DATA PERTAINING TO SOUTHBOUND PASSENGER CAPS AND PASSENGERSTRAVELLING OVER CAHUENGA PASS DURING THE PERIOD
6: 00AM to I0: 00PM, JULY 195B
This Figure presents some of the data given in Table No. 12. A
portion of the passenger automobiles travelling southbound over Cahuenga
Pass continue directly down Highland Avenue to and through Hollywood, while
the remainder travel easterly to the eastern section of Hollywood and beyond,
via Cahuenga Boulevard. The Hollyw~rod Freeway is not yet connected to the
Freeway through the Pass
Of a total of 47,658 passenger cars travelling southbound over the
Pass, 29,289, or 61.5 per cent, travelled via Cahuenga Boulevard, and 18,369,
or 38.~ per cent, passed down Highland Avenue. Of the total of 70,797
passengers, 44,~34 or 62.8 per cent travelled via Cahuenga Boulevard, and
26,363, or 37.2 per cent, travelled down Highland Avenue.
Passengers per car started out at slightly over 1.3 in early morning
hours, and gradually increased to around 1.5 by 6:00PM, and then increased
fairly rapidly until 9:00PM, after which time they dropped off in number.
Between 7:00 and 9:00AM, 20.9 per cent of the total passengers moved, and
between 7:00 AM and 10:00AM, this proportion was 29.7 per cent, or a total
of 50.6 per cent of the total l~ hour traffic in these ~ hours. The slight
evening peak, between ~:00 and 6:00PM, is apparently made up of persons
working in the San Fernando Valley and living south of the Pass, while the
later peak between 7:00 and 9:00PM, is probably made up of pleasure seekers
coming to Hollywood~ and of persons travelling to Los Angeles from distant
points in the northern or central part of the State.
See Table No. 12
TABLE NO. ±2
SOUTHBOU~ ~ASSENCER CAFS A~]) PASSENGERSOVER CAHD]~NGA PASS
: ~ERICD : TO CAHL~NCA AVENL~ :: TO HIGHLAND AVENUE :: TOTAL SOUTHBOUND TPAFFIC :: : :: :: :
: : PASS. CAFS : PASSENCEPS : PASS. :: PASS. CAPS : PASSENGERS : PASS. :: PASS. CAPS : PASSENCEFS : PASS. :: : NO. : ~ : nO. : % : PER :: nO. : ~ : n0. : Io : PER :: NO. : ~ : ~0. : ~ : ~ER :: : :TOTAL : :TOTAL: CAR :: :TOTAL : :TOTAL : CAR :: :TOTAL : :TOTAL : CAR :
: -~-_TAH ; 1868; 6.4 ; 2510’: -5]6:1.34 ;; 943:: 7-SAM : 3498:11.9 : 5081 : 11.4:1.45 :: 2133:: 8- 9AM : 3510:12.0 : 4609 : 10.4:1.31 :: 2072:
: 9-10AM: 2489:: 10-11AM: 1863:: II-12AM: 1648:
:~o. 12-1PM : 1429:
: I-2PM : 1538:: 2-3PM : 1412:: :
: 3-4PM : 1630:: 4-5PM : 1827:: 5-6PM : 1594:: : :
: 6-TPM ::1422:: 7-8PM : 1598:: 8-9PM : 1137:: :
: 9-10PM: 826:: : :
8.5 : 3323 : 7.5:1.33 :: 1494:6.4 : 2792 : 6.3:1.50 :: 1025:5.6 : 2545 : 5.7:1.54 :: 1021:
: : : :: :
4.9 : 2186 : 4.9:1.53 :: 868:5.2 : 2439 : 5.5:1.58 :: 830:4.8 : 2098 : 4.7:1.49 :: 820:
: : : :: :
5.6 : 2486 : 5.6:1.52 :: 986:6.2 : 2871 : 6.5:1.57 :: 1411:5.4 : 2445 : 5.5:1.53 :: 1292:
: : : :: :
4.9 : 2384 : 5.4:1.68 :: 1019:5.5 : 3073 : 6.9:1.92 :: 986:3.9 : 2142 : 4.8:1.88 :: 784:
: : : ::
2.8 : 1450 : 3.3:1.75 :: 689:: : : ::
:Totals
5.1: 1221: 4.6:1.30 :: 2811:11.6: 2670: i0.i: 1.25 :: 5631:11.3: 2406: 9.1:1.16 :: 5582:
: : : ::
8.1: 1891: 7.2 : 1.27 :: 3983:5.6: 1350: 5.1 : 1.32 :: 2888:5.6: 1437: 5.4 : 1.41 :: 2669:
: : : ::
4.7: 1094: 4.2 : 1.26 :: 2297:4.5: 1165: 4.4 : 1.40 :: 2368:4.4: 1054: 4.0 : 1.29 :: 2232:
: : : :: :
5.4 : 1418: 5.4 : 1.44 :: 2616:7.7 : 2067: 7.9 : 1.46 :: 3238:7.0 : 1894: 7.2 : 1.47 :: 2886:
: : : :: :
5.6 : 1531: 5.8 : 1.50 :: 2441:5.4 : 1857: 7.1 : 1.88 :: 2584:4.3 : 2011: 7.6 : 2.57 :: 1921:
: : : ::
3.7 : 1297: 4.9 : 1.89 :: 1511:: : : ::
5.9: 3731: 5~,37:1.33 :11.8: 7751:ii.0 : 1.38 :11.7: 7015: 9.9 : 1.26":
: : : :8.2: 5214: 7.4 : 1.31 :6.1: 4142: 5.9 : 1.43 :5.6: 3982: 5.6 : 1.49 :
: : :
4.8: 3280: 4.6 : 1.43 :5.0: 3604: 5.1 : 1.52 :4.7: 3152: 4.5 : 1.41 :
: : :
5.5 : 3904: 5.5 : 1.49 :6.8 : 4938: 7.0 : 1.52 :6.1 : 4339: 6.1 : 1.50 :
: : :
5.1 : 3915: 5.5 : 1.61 :5.4 : 4930: 7.0 : 1.90 :4.1 : 4153: 5.9 : 2.16 :
: : :
3.2 : 2747: 3.7 : 1.82 :: : :
:29289:100.0:44434 :i00.0:1.46 ::18369:100.0:26363:100.0 : 1.44 ::47658:100.0:70797:100.0 : 1.49 :
: PERIOD ::
:
:
:
TABLE NO. 12 CONTINL!ED
S UMMA RY
TO CAHUENGA AVENUE : : TO HIGHLAND AVENUE :: TOTAL SOUTHBOUND TRAFFIC ::: :: :
: PASS. ~AP$ : PASSENCEP$ : PASS. :: PASS. CAPS : PASSENCERS : PASS. :: PASS. CARS : PASSINCEI~S : PASS. :: NO. : ~ : NO. : % : PER :: NO. : ~ : NO. : ~ : PER :: NO. : ~o : NO. : ~ : PER :: :TOTAL: :TOTAL: CAR :: :TOTAL : :TOTAL: CAR :: :TOTAL : :TOTAL: CAR :
~o : 8P-IOPM: 1963:
: 6-7AM : 1868: 6.4 : 2510 : 5.6:1.34 :: 943: 5.1 : 1221 : 4.6:1.30 :: 2811: 5.9 : 3731 : 5.3:1.33 :: 7-gAM : 7008:23.9 : 9690 : 21.8:1..38 :: 4205:22.9 : 5076 : 19.2:1.21 ::11213:23.5:14766 : 20.9:1.32 :: 7-10AM: 9497:32.4:13013 : 29.3:1.37 :: 5699:31.0 : 6967 : 26.4:1.22 ::15196:31.7:19980 : 28.3:1.31 :: : : : : : :: : : : : :: : : : : ::IOA-4PM : 9520:32.5:14546 : 32.7:1.53 :: 5550:30.2 : 7518 : 28.5:1.35 ::95070:31.7:22064 : 31.2:1.47 ::IOA-5PM :11347:38.7:17417 : 39.2:1.53 :: 6961:39.7 : 9585 : 36.4:1.38 ::18308:38.5:27002 : 38.2:1.48 :: 4P-SPM : 6441:22.0:10773 : 24.3:1.67 :: 4708:25.7 : 7349 : 28.0:1.56 ::11149:23.4:18122 : 25.6:1.63 :: : : : : : :: : : : : :: : : : : :: 5P-SPM : 4614:15.8 : 7902 : 17.8:1.71 :: 3297:18.0 : 5282 : 20.1:1.60 :: 7911:16.6:13184 : 18.6:1.85 :
6.7 : 3592 : 8.1:1.83 :: 1469: 8.0 : 3308 : 12.5:2.25 :: 3432: 7.3 : 6900:: 9.6:2.01 :
NOTES :
Southbound Cars and Passengers to Cahuenga - Monday, July 20, 1953 - ~:00AM to 10:00PM by RuscardonEng
Southbound Passengers to Highland - Monday, July 13, 1953 - 6:00AM to 8:00PM by RuscardonEngineers
Southbound Passengers and Cars to Highland - Monday August i0, 1953 -8:00PM to 10:00PM by
RuscardonEngineersSouthbound Cars to Highland - Monday, July 13, 1953 - 6:00AM to 8:00PM by State Highway Department
SH33NI~N3 NOO~Y~$n~
FIGURE NO. 17
HOURLY DISTRIBUTION OF VEHICULARAND TRANSITPASSENGER TRAVEL OVER 24 HOURS
This graph, based upon data given in Table No. 13, shows hourly distribution
of passenger and vehicular travel on the lines of the Pacific Electric Rail-
way, the Los Angeles Transit Lines, and on the Hollywood and Arroyo Seco
Freeways.
The morning peak transit travel, between 7:00 and 9:00AM, accounts
for 23.9 per cent of the total 24 hour passengers on the Pacific Electric
Railway, and for 19~3 per cent on the Los Angeles Transit Lines, with the
evening peak~ between 4:00 and 6:00PM accounting for 29.7 per cent of the
.total 24 hour passengers on the Pacific Electric P~ilway, and for 22.5
per cent on the Los An6eles Transit Lines. Thus, these four peak hours
account for travel of 49. 2 per cent of the total passengers on the Pacific
Electric Railway and for 41.8 per cent of the total passengers on the Los
Angeles Transit Lines.
Travel during offpeak hours, during the middle of the day and after
6:00PM is heavier on the Los Angeles Transit Lines than on the Pacific
Electric Railway, and this accounts, at least to a considerable extent, for
the fact that travel peaks on the Pacific Electric Railway are somewhat
higher than those on the Los Angeles Transit Lines, when expressed in terms
of total 24 hour passenger travel.
Z
Z
Z<
TABLE NO. 13
HOURLY DISTRIBUTION OF PASSENGER
A~ VEHICULAR TRAVEL
: PAC. ELEC. BY. : L.A. TRAN. LI~S : VEHICLES :
: $ of TOTAL : ~ OF TOTAL : $ OF TOTAL :
: PASSENGERS : PASSENGERS : ON FPEEWAYS :
: 24 Hrs.: 16 Hrs. : 24 Hrs.: 16 Hrs. : 24 Hrs.: 16 Hrs:: 6-6AM : 6A-10PM : 6-6AM : 6A-10PM : 6-6AM :6A-10PM:
6- 7AM : 4.0 : 4.27- 8AM : 13.8 : 14.4~- 9AM : 9.7 : i0.i
: :
9-10AM : 4.7 : 4.910-11AM : 4.2 : 4.4
II-12AM : 4.0 : 4.2
: :12- IPM : 4.0 : 4.2
l- 2PM : 3.8 : 4.0
2- 3PM : 4.1 : 4.2
:
3- 4PM : 6.0 : 6.34- 5PM : ii.7 : 12.2
5- 6PM : 14.0 : 14.6
: :6- 7PM : 6.0 : 6.37- 8PM : 2.3 : 2.4
8- 9PM : 1.8 : 1.99-10PM : 1.6 : 1.7
:
10-11PM : 1.3 :II-12PM : 1.0 :
: :12- IAM : 0.7 :i- 2AM : 0.3 :2- 3AM : 0.i :
:
3- 4AM : 0.i :4- 5AM : 0.i :5- 6AM : 0.7 :
: :
TOTALS : I00.0: 100.0 : 100.0
4.0: 4.2 : 3.311.8 : 12.5 : 8.4
7.5: 7.9 : 7.5: :
4.4: 4.7 : 5.54.7: 5.0 : 4.5
5.2: 5.5 : 4.6: :
4.8: 5.1 : 4.6
5.1: 5.4 : 4.5
5.2: 5.5 : 4.9
: :
6.0: 6.4 : 6.0
i0.6 : ii. 2 : 8.3
11.9 : 12.6 : 9.8
:
5.5: 5.8 : 6.82.9: 3.1 : 4.2
2.5 : 2.7 : 3.12.3: 2.4 : 3.0
: :1.6: : 3.21.4 : : 3.4
: :
0.9: : 1.70.3: : 0.80.2 : : 0.4
:
O.l: : 0.30.2 : : 0.40.9: : 0.8
: :: i00.0 : i00.0
:
3.7:9.4:8.4 :
:6.2 :5.1:5.2:
:
5.2:5.1:
5.5::
6.7:9.3:
ii.0 :
7.6."4.7:3.5 :3.4:
:
lO0.O :
Souro~)
Research Department- Pacifio Eleotric Company -
January 28, 1953
7o
essential, particularly in the Metropolitan Areas of the State, and with
the extremely high cost of such Freeways compared with costs of arterial
highways, it has not provided sufficient funds annually to allow such free-
way construction to keep pace with the increasing demands of motor vehicle
traffic for them.
An effort was made in the 1953 State Legislature to provide a large
~ bond issue~ debt service upon which would have been met from future gasoline
O~ and user taxes, in order to accelerate freeway construction in Metropolitan¯
Areas, as well as to make up deficiencies in other highways, which was not
successful. Another bill creating a Freeway Authority for Metropolitan
Los Angeles~ which would have imposed local gasoline and possibly other
taxes, using such revenues for debt service on a large bond issue, to be
likewise used for accelerating local Freeway construction.~ failed of passage.
It is the opinion of the writer, as stated in the Foreword of this
Report. that, irrespective of whether the proposed rail facilities are con
structed, some method of financing Freeway construction in Netropolitan Los
Angeles, which will allow early completion of a Freeway network adequate to
I care for present traffic and which will allow such a network to keep pace
with increasing population and motor vehicle registration, is an urgent
~ necessity.¯
Such Freeway network will be needed particularly to serve those
areas where present population densities are low and travel patterns are not
now, nor will be for some time in the future, of a character to provide suf~
cient revenues to support rail mass rapid transit, until such time as den-
sities and travel patterns in these areas will provide such support.
®
FIGURE NO. 18
PRESENT AND FUTURE STATUS OF FREEWAY DEVELOPI~NT
The following indicate briefly the present and future status of Freewaydevelopment in Metropolitan Los Angeles, during the next few years.
HARBOR FREEWAY - Now open to Sixth Street. Section from Sixth to OlympicBoulevard scheduled to open in early 1954, Section to 23rd Street undercontract, scheduled to open about the middle of 1955. Construction bidsto Exposition Boulevard to be advertised early in 1954, with this sectionto be opened in the middle of 1956. Construction bids to Gage Avenue to beadvertised in latter part of 1954, with opening of this section early in1957. Southern end from Lomita Boulevard to Battery Street, San Pedro, tobe advertised for bid in early 1954, and opened for use the latter part of1956 Right-of-way acquired on all remaining sections. Construction to
"proceed as funds become available.
LCS ANCEIES RIVER F~E~~AY - Completed north of 223rd Street. Under con-struction to south crossing of Atlantic Boulevard. Right-of-way beingacquired north to Olympic Boulevard, with section from Washington Boulevardto Olympic Boulevard scheduled for initial construction.
HOLLYWOOD - RAMONA COHNECTION- Aliso-Alameda Street underpass scheduled foropening the end of 1953. Vignes Street separation to be completed about theend of 1954.
HOLLYWOOD FI:~IEWAY - Completion of section through Cahuenga Pass scheduledfor completion early in 1954. Extension westerly to Ventura Boulevardprobable. Extension north to San Fernando less probable.
GENERAL COMMENTS - Riverside Parkway route adopted, San Fernando toArroyo Seco. Extension of Riverside Parkuay from Arroyo Seco southerly toRamona and Santa Ana Parkways, with Olympic Freeway, thence westerly toSanta Monica appears likely. Santa Monica Parkway through Beverly Hillsappears unlikely. Sepulveda Parkway route adopted but time of initiationof construction indefinite.
VIII
ORIGIN AND DESTINATION STUDY
In an investigation of this character it becomes necessary to secure
information as to the location of residence and place of employment of pote~
tlal passengers who might ride a transit facility to be constructed, and
also as to their movement and pattern.
Location of Industry
Plate II shows the location of land now occupied by industry. It
will be noted that such industry is located in the area extending from the
southeastern portion of Los Angeles in a southerly direction. That this
general locational trend will in all probability continue in the future is
indicated by the location of land now zoned for industrial purposes.
Naturally, some scattering of industrial use may be expected, but the
pattern has been set for this continuation, by the location of existing
industrial uses and the zoning of land for expansion of these uses "
Other considerations will likewise influence the continuation of this
trend, proximity of rail lines and highways, and of the Forts of Long Beach
and Los Angeles, available water supply, and, with provision of adequate
transportation facilities~ an adequate labo~ supply.
Persons Included in Study
Because of the availability of information, thepresent study was
limited primarily to employees of industry~ with the exception of Postal
Zones 12, 13, 14, 15 and 17~ these being Downtown Los Angeles, and 28, Holly-
wood. In the aforementioned Zones the employees included those working in
the retail stores, hotels, etc., and also occupants of office buildings. All
persons covered in this study are employed and therefore constitute the major
portion of the potential traffic during the morning and evening peak hours.
Industrial Establishments Included in Study
The Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce in 1952 published a Directory
of all industrial establishments in Los Angeles County, employing 25 or
more persons, giving the street address and Postal Zone of each industry
or plant in the County. These industries were classified-as to number of
employees into the following groups-25 to 49 employees; 50 to 99 employees;
i00 to 249 employees; 250 to 499 employees; and 500 or more employees. The
total industrial employees in each Zone were estimated by taking the avera~
number employed in each group and multiplying such number by the number of
plants listed in each Zone in each group. For example, in the group employ-
ing between 25 and 49 employees, it was assumed that average number employed
was 37. This number was multiplied by the number of plants in the Zone in
this group to secure the number of estimated industrial employees in that
Zone.
This method is considered statistically sound, as the number of firms
in each group was large. The number of employees in those firms employing
in excess of 500 persons was in most instances secured directly from the
I employer, and in the few instances where such information was not available,
the number was taken as the average number of employees per firm in the
~~ 500 or more group.¯
Procedure Used in Securing Employee Addresses
Addresses of employees segregated as to Postal Zones were secured by
a number of methods- personal solicitation, telephone calls and by mail.
In quite ~ few instances local Chambers of Commerce in smaller communities
gave excellent cooperation. In securing this information some employers
furnished separate 3" x 5" cards for each employee with their name and
residence address; and in most insta.nces~ the Postal Zone in which such
employee lived. In a small percentage of cases the employees address card
did not give the Postal Zone of his residence.
When the number of addresses lacking Postal Zone identification
formed a fairly sizable proportion of the total persons employed at a plant,
a 25 to 50 per cent sample of such unzoned addresses was taken, and Postal
Zones of such addresses determined from a Street Directory which gave Postal
~ Zones. Where the unzoned addresses constituted a relatively small proportion,
O~ they were proportioned between employees who lived in the Study Area and¯
those who lived without it. As was to be expected~ a large number of employee~
Iwere found to live outside of the Study Area. This group was set aside,
however~ for use in any future studies.
Other employers and groups supplied the data on forms supplied to
them, these forms giving the total number of persons employed by them at each
plant or business location in each of the 80 Postal Zones.
Expansion Factor
While it was not possible to secure a 100 per cent sample of all
employees, the percentage was quite high in the majority of Zones, being in
excess of 50 per cent of those employed in industry in the Area, as is shown
~in Table No. 14.
¯ It then became necessary to expand this sample to include all of these
persons employed in industry in each Postal Zone. Inasmuch as the size of
the sample was substantial, it was assumed that the residence pattern for
all employees in each Zone was the same as that indicated by the sample. To
the ~l~uown number of employees working in a given Zone and living in each of
the 80 Postal Zones, an "Expansion Factor" was applied, this being developed
as follows.
75
TABL_~ NO. 14
SUMMARY OF ORIGIN AND DESTINATION STb]DY
POSTAL ZONE : EMPLOY- : EST’D. : EX~AN- : NO. IN : EST’D. :: EES : TOTAL : SION : COL. I : NO. IN :: NAMES : EMPLOY- : FACTOR : LIVING :COL.2 LIV-:: REC’D. : EES : : IN : ING IN: : : : STUDY : STUDY: : : : AREA: AREA
:~ : (i) : (2) : (3) : (4) : (5):GROUP A : : : : : ~: Burbank : 41804 : 48652 : 1.16 : 32271 : 37524: Chatsworth ; 129 : 129 : 1.00 : 103 : 103: Ca~oga Park : O0 : O0 : 00 : O0 : 00: Encino : 00 : 00 : 00 : 00 : O0: No. Hollywood : 7912 : 9576 : 1.21 : 7059 : 8575: : : : : :: Northridge : 00 : 00 : O0 : 00 : 00: Pacoima : 151 : 213 : 1.41 : 135 : 191: Reseda : 235 : 288 : 1.22 : 146 : 276: San Fernando : 669 : ~40 : 1.41 : 622 : 871: Sun Valley : 397 : 688 : 1.74 : 349 : 606
:Tarzana : O0 : O0 : O0 : O0 : 00: Universal City : O0 : O0 : O0 : 00 : 00: Van Nuys : ~157 : 5976 : 1.89 : 2974 : 5615: Woodland Hills : 00 : 00 : 00 : 00 : 00: : : : : :: Total : 54454 : 66462 : 1.22 : 43659 : 53761
:GROUP B: L. A. Zone 27 : 435 : 1188 : 2.73 : 327 : 892: 28 : 3895 : 24720 : "6.18 : 2621 : 17781: ~9 : 388 : 638 : 1.65 : 246 : 399: 38 : 1720 : 8326 : 4.85 : 1152 : 5587: : : : : :: Total : 6436 : 34872 : 5.41 : 4346 : 24659
:GROUP C: Glendale i : : : : : :: 2 : : : : : :: 3 : : Glendale zones : not : :: 4 : : : : : :: 5 : : Tabulated individually : :: ; : : : : :: ~ : : : : : :: 7 : : : : : :: 8 : : : : : :: : : : :~ : :: Total ~~ 5081 : 9373 : 1,85 : 3816 : 7105 :
z
z0
Z.(
TABLE NO. 14 - CONTINUED
POSTAL ZONE : EMPLOY- : EST’D.: EES: NAMFS: I~EC ’D. : EES :: : :
: :
: :
: GROUP D :: L. A. Zone 4 :: 5 :: 6 :
: 7 :: 18 :: :
:: Total :
: EXPAN- : NO. IN : EST’D. :: TOTAL : SION : COL. I : NO. IN :: EMPLOY- : FACTOR : LIVING :COL. 2 LIV:
(i) (2)
1428 : 23913593 : 38733362 : 33923088 : 7501
169 : ~4C0:
2876 : 5225:
14~16 : 22782
: IN : ING IN :: STUDY : STD~DY :: AREA : AREA :
(3)
1.671.081.002.432.37
1.82
1.57
(4) : (5):
991 : 16541805 : 19601657 : 16571820 : 4418
i15 : 264:
1613 : 2933:
8001 : 12886
:GROUP E: L. A. Zone 12 :: 26 :: 31 :: 32 :: 39 :: 41 :: 42 :: 65 ::: Total :
26269 : 36577 : "1.39 :72 : 725 : lO.10 :
6923 : 11935 : 1.72 :4334 : 7500 : 1,73 :2786 : 5286 : 1.90 :
69 : 75 : 1.09 :161 : 213 : 1.32 :
3099 : 5913 : 1.91 :: :
43713 : 68224 :
17127: 24056 :50 : 502 :
4341:: 7481 :18~4 : 3245 :22~9 ~ 4357
65 : 69 :101 : 134 :
2231 : 4263 :
1.56 : 28078 : 44107 :
:GROUP F: L. A. Zone 13 :: 34:: 15 :: 17 :: 21 ::: Total :
15044 : 25799 : *1.71 : 9390 :30878 : 58636 : *1.80 : 17510 :7234 : 28852 : *4.00 : 4390 :
12006 : 19443 : "1.62 : 6669 :4344 : 15696 : 3.62 : 2781 :
: : : :
69506 : 148426 : 2.14 : 40740 :
161313256316275i065310251
85873
:GROUP G: L. A. Zone 22 :: 23 :: 33 :: 63 ::
: Total :
14896 : 24926 : 1.67 : 7534 : 126206428 : 19259 : 3.00 : 3884 : 116581218 : 2124 : 1.75 : 862 : 1521
140 : 3193 : 22.80 : 83 : 1895: : : :
22682 : 49502 : 2.18 : 12363 : 27694
<
.Ju
Z
Z
z<
: POSTAL ZONE
GROUP HL. A. Zone i :
2 :
ll :58 :
Bell ::
: Huntington Pk. :: South Gate :: Maywood :: :
: Total :
:GROUP I: L. A. Zone 59:: Compton :: Lynwood :: :
: Total :
:GROUP J: Bellflower :: Downey :: Paramount :: :
: Total :
TABLE N0. 14 CONTINUED
: EMPLOY- : EST’D. : EXPAN- : NO. IN : EST’D. :: EES : TOTAL : SION : COL. I : NO. IN :: NAMES : EMPLOY-: FACTOR : LIVING :COL.2 LIV-:: REC’D. : EES : : IN : ING IN :: : : : STUDY : STUDY :: : : : AREA : AP~A :: (i) (2) : (3) (4) (5) :
2601 : i1831 : 4.55 : 1585 : 70553972 : 6838 : 1.72 : 2931 : 50442484 : 10897 : 4.38 : 1348 : 6505
31243 : 51657 : 1.65 : 21337 : 34751396 : 1137 : 2.87 : 298 : 853
: : : :
2592 : 4483 : 1.73 : 1687 : 29387360 : 12168 : 1.65 : 5018 : 8285
313 : 2235 : 7.15 : 218 : 1546
50961 : 101246 : 1.99 : 34422 : 66977 :
67 : 1076 : 16.08 : 30 : 4812464 : 2786 : 1.13 : 1709 : 19641838 : 2080 : 1.13 : 1418 : 1599
: : : :
4369 : 5942 : 1.36 : 3157 : 4044
O0 : 00 : 00 : 00 : 004689 : 7751 : 1.66 : 2441 : 4056
235 : 388 : 1.65 : 201 : 332: : : :
4924 : 8139 : 1.65 : 2642 : ~388
: GROUP K: Long Beach 2 :: 3 :: 4 :: 5 :: 6 ::
: 7 :: 8 :: lO :: ll :: 12 :: :
: 13 :: 14 :: 15 :
:
: Total :
1156 : 2294 : 1.99 : 1051 : 20967342 : 7755 : 1.06 : 6361 : 67382170 : 2583 : 1.19 : 1901 : 22621351 : 2137 : 1.58 : 1098 : 1537
379 : 838 : 2.21 : 285 : 620: : : :
199 : 538 : 2.71 : 154 : 41713571 : 17175 : 1.26 : 8398 : 10582
24 : 150 : 6.25 : 20 : 11800 : 00 : 00 : 00 : 00
888 : 2573 : 2.90 : 829 : 2358: : : :
275 : 2003 : 7.29 : 252 : 17647 : 288 : 00 : 3 : 3
00 : 00 : 00 : 00 : 00
27362 : 38334 : 1.40 : 20352 : 28495 :
TABLE NO. 14 - CONTINUED
POSTAL ZONE : F/MPLOY- : EST’D. : EXPAN- : NO. IN : EST’D.: EES: NAMES
: TOTAL : SlON : COL. I : NO. IN :: EMPLOY-: FACTOR : LIVING :COL.2 LIV-:: EES : : IN : ING IN :: : : STUDY : STUDY :: : ~" AREA : AREA :: (2) : (3) (4) (5) :
: REC ’D.::: (11
:GROUP L: Harbor City: San Pedro: Wilmington:: Total
O0 : O0 : 00: 00 : 00 :4347 : 10255 : 2.36: 3693 : 8716 :6659 : 11675 : 1.75: 5527 : 9679 :
: : : : :11006 : 21930 : 1.99: 9220 : 18399 :
: GROUP M: Torrance:: Total
: ~ GRAND TOTAL
: 5849 : 21836 : 3.74: 3492 : 13020: : : : :: 5845 : 21836 : 3.74: 3492 : 13020
: 320855 : 597068 : 1.86:214288 : 391404 :
NOTES :
Columu (1) Actual No. of Names secured of persons
employed in designated Postal Zone
Col=n (2)
Colu~u
Column
Column (5)
Estimated Total No. of persons employed inzone by types of concerns contacted in Study
Column (3) equals Column (2) divided by Column
Actual No. of Names secured of persons who wereemployed in zone and lived in Study Area
Estimated total number of persons employed in zoneby types of concerns contacted who live in StudyArea. Column (5) is a summary of the expansion the distributed names in the designated zone byuse of the factor given in Column (3)
*-These zones were expanded by a ~ifferentprocedure explained in Text.
The total figure for employees estimated to be working in the given
Postal Zone was divided by the figure for employees whose Postal Zone
address was known, the result being considered as the "Expansion Factor".
The following hypothetical case illustrates the procedure.
Assume that there were an estimated 2500 persons employed in Zone 35,
who lived within the Study Area, and that of these, Zones of residence were
available for 1500 employees. The "Expansion Factor" for Zone 35 would
therefor be 2500 ¯ 1500, or 1.67. If information was received to the effect-
that 30 employees who worked in Zone 39 resided in Zone 22, this latter
number was expanded by multiplying by the factor 1.67 (30xi.67) and it was
estimated that of the total 2500 persons who worked in Zone 35, 50 resided
in Zone 22.
Table No l~ shows that there was a total of 597,068 persons employed.
in these 80 Zones, that data as to Zone of residence was received from
320,855 persons, making the "Expansion Factor" for the entire Study Area 1.86
This includes the Zones in "Downtown Los Angeles" mentioned above, and also
the Holls~ood Area.
Because of the preponderance of non-industrial employees in Downtown
Los Angeles and in Hollywood, an effort was made to determine Zone addresses
of employees of retail stores, hotels, financial concerns and public agencies
and occupants of office buildings.
In 1949, the Downtown Business Men’s Association made an estimate of
the total number of persons who entered and remained in the Central District
during the 16 hours, 6:00AM to IO:OOPM, using then available sources of
information, and this was used as a bases for the Origin and Destination
Study in this area, being expanded as described below.
The area included in this Study extended from Sunset Boulevard on the
north to Pico Boulevard on the south, and from Figueroa Street on the west to
8O
Los Angeles Street on the east. The five Postal Zones which make up this
area cover a considerably larger area than that given above, and it was
felt that the Downtown Business Men’s Association Study should be expanded
to cover the five Postal Zones.
To the 22~343 Governmental employees included in the estimate of the
Downtown Business Men’s Association estimate, 15 per cent was added, mak-
~ ing an estimated total within this employment category of 25,694 employees.
~ City~ County and Federal Agencies reported residence addresses of 21,448¯u employees. This providing an "Expansion Factor" of 1.20 (25694 , 21448).
A total of 4821 addresses of industrial employees working in plants in
these Zones was received. Total employees estimated to be working in these
Zones, based upon the categories in the Chamber of Commerce publication,
were 10,993 which gave an "Expansion Factor" of 2.25(10993t 4821).
No information as to employees in smaller retail stores in this Zone was
received from the Downtown Business Men’s Association, although those
employed by the large department stores were included.
Zone 13 The Downtown Business Men’s Association reported addresses of
7053 persons employed in stores in this Zone and an "Expansion Factor" of
~ 1.50 was arNitraril~ assumed. It was also found by canvass that 6165
¯ occupants of office buildings in this Zone existed and an "Expansion Factor"
of 1.7 was erbltrarily assumed, giving a total of 10,481 occupants of offi~
buildings in this Zone. Replies were received from industrial employers
giving the residence addresses of 1826 persons employed in this Zone. The
estimate from the Chamber of Co~nerce Bulletin of total industrial employees
therein was 4738 persons, resulting in an "Expansion Factor" of 2.59 for this
Zone.
I ~D;uou smpAoyees in reLa, l± sLores in no±±ywooG. ~lnce ~e Hollywood retail
82
no data was available on this point, it was arbitrarily assumed that
75 per cent of these 23,060 persons were employed in Zone 28, or a total
of 17,300. Based upon data in adjacent Zones, it was assumed that 10.2
per cent of the 17~300 employees or 12,150, lived in the Study Area and their
residential addresses were distributsd in the pattern found by occupants of
office buildings and industrial workers.
It is realized that the quality of the results of this Study is not
~ as high as is that developed from industrial employees, but it does take in
¯
ccnsiderably ~ore employees in other categories, and in all probability tl~
final results are of reasonable quality.
Other Potential Passengers
As stated above, all potential passengers, except those in Downtown
Los Angeles and in Hollywood, are industrial employees engaged in manufact-
uring industry. In addition to these employees, however, there are a sub-
stantial number of employees in other industrial categories.
In the Community Labor Market Survey of the California State Depart-
ment of Employment~a total of 1,486,000 persons were listed as being employed
in ii employment areas as of July 1952. These employment areas cover very
~ closely the Study Area. The number of employees in each employment area in
¯ each category are listed in Table No. 15.
Manufacturing had the greatest number - 436,500 - followed by Whole-
sale and Retail Trade 342,900 - and then Service - 248,100. Employees in
Manufacturing constitute 29.7 per cent of the total number of employees, and
the above three categories include 1,026,000 persons, or 69.0 per cent of
the workers in these Ii employment areas.
Table No. 16 was prepared to show the number of employees in each
employment area and under each category, per i000 employees in Manufacturin~.
For example, in the Huntington Park area there were 124,500 employees in
Manufacturing, and 34,400 in Wholesale and Retail Trade, or 277 per i000
Manufacturing. For every employee in Manufacturing there were a total,
including those in Manufacturing, of 4,056 employees in the 13 employment
Zones.
Nearly all of these employees in Manufacturing could be considersd as
Dotential users of this transit facility if it is constructed. This is not"
true, to as great an extent, with employees in other industrial categories
due to various reasons, their residence being close to their place of employ-
ment, their need to use their own automobile in their daily work and similar
reasons.
No information is available on this matter nor as to the location of
residence of employees in other than the Manufacturing category. To secure
some idea of how many of these employees in other categories would also be
certain assumptions, these being based largely upon local knowledge of
employment characteristics.
The results of these assumptions are Shown in Table No. 17. Under
each category an assumption was made as to the total percentage of employees
in each employment category who would be potential users of the proposed
transit facility. For example, it was assumed that only 5 per cent of those
potential users in the proposed facility, it becomes necessary to make
employed in the category of Fishing and Agriculture would be potential users
of the proposed facility, i0 per cent of those employed in the Mining categor
(including oil workers)~ 7½ per cent in the Construction category, etc.
the Burbank employment area., for example, there were 68 employees in the
Fishing and Agriculture category per i000 employees in Manufacturing.
Applying the 5 per cent Factor to this number it developed that but 3
employees per lO00 employees in Manufacturing would be potential users of the
: EMPLOYMENT :: AREA :: :
: :
TABLE NO. 16
EMPLOY~NT IN VARIOUS CATEGORIES PER 1000 EMPLOYEESIN MANUFACTURING - IN EMPLOYMENT AREAS ADJACENT
TO AND INCLUDING STUDY ARF~
TOTAL- :FISHING :MINING: CONST- :MANUFACT- :TRANSPN. :WHOLE- :FINANCE :SERVICE :GOVERN- : OTHER::AGRICUL- : : RUCTION: b-RING : COMMCTN. : SALE: INSUR- : ; MENT : :
: TURE : : : :UTILIT ’S : PETAIL: ANCE : : : :: : : : : : TRADE:REAL EST: : :__:
: :
: Burbank : 1834:
: Compton : 3333: :
: East Los : 3383: ~ngeles :: Glendale : 3598: :
: Hollywood : 6840: :
: Huntington : 1767: Park :: Long Beach : 3158: :
: Los Angeles: 4777: :
:San Fernando: 9000: :
: San Pedro : 3500: :
: Torrance : 2827: :
: Van Nuys : 5920: :
: Wilmington : 2818: :
: Average : 4056
68 : 4 : 50 : i000 : 90 : 153 : 49 : 340
: : : : : : :
258 : 86 : 432 : I000 : 247 : 518 : 62 : 494
: : : : : : :
299 : 0 : 80 : lO00 : 313 : 955 : 56 : 274
: : : : : : :
378 : 15 : 235 : i000 : 182 : 683 : 136 : 568
: : : : : :
216 : 16 : 280 : lO00 : 320 : 2000 : 440 : 1824
: : : : : :
i0 : i : 71 : i000 : 44 : 277 : 34 : 180
: : : : : :
68 : 91 : 273 : lO00 : i17 : 682 : 143 : 431: : : : : :
ll2 : 5 : 121 : lO00 : 567 : 1320 : 372 : 875
: : : : : :
1650 : 200 : 600 : i000 : 500 : 1600 : 300 : 2000
: : : : : :
767 : 0 : 583 : i000 : 250 : 233 : 83 : 150
: : : : : : :
143 : 42 : 327 : i000 : 77 : 488 : 95 : 506
: : : : : :
228 : 5 : 670 : i000 : 107 : 1563 : 491 : i071
: : : : : : :
330 : 80 : 136 : i000 : 568 : 227 : 34 : 170
: : : : : :
:w~3~8 : 42 : 2_9~ ~ 1900 ~ 260 : 824 i i~6 : 683
Source - Data in Table No.
: :
30 : 50 ::
iii : 123 :: :
i0 : 398 ::
136 : 265 :: :
104 : 640 :: :
54 : 96 ::
208 : 145 :
405 : 0 :: :
150 : i000 :: :
267 : 167 :
60 : 89 :: :
312 : 473 :
68 : 20~,:
: 147 : 281 :
TABLE NO. 17POTENTIAL D-$EPS IN VARi0DS ~v~LOYiv~T CATEGORIES
COMPAPED WITH POTENTIAL USEPS ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING
:~ of USE BY : : : : : : : : : : : ::EMPLOYEES IN: : 5 : l0 : 7½ : 100 : 25 : 25 : 25 : 12½ : 30 : 15 ::MANUFACTURING : : : : : : : : : : :
; EMPLOYMENT :: AREA :: :
: :
: :
: Burbank ::
: Compton :: :
:East Los :: Angeles :: Glendale :: :
: Hollywood :: :
: Huntington :: Beach :: Long Beach :: :
: Los Angeles::
:San Fernando:: :
: San Pedro :: :
: Torrance :: :
: Van Nuys :: :
: Wilmington :: :
: Average :
TOTAL :FISHING :MINING: CONST-:MANUFACT-:TRANSPN.:WHOLE-:FINANCE :SERVICE:GOVERN-: OTHER::AGRICUL-: : RUCTION: URING :COMMCTN.: SALE:INSUR- : : MENT : :: TUBE : : : :UTILIT’S:RETAIL: ANCE : : : :: : : :
(i) : (2) :-~3) : (4) : (5)1139 : -3 ; 0 ; 4 :
: :" : :
1374 : 13 : 9 : 32 :: : : :
1448 : 15 : 0 : 6 :: : :
1440 : 19 : 2 : 18 :: : :
2079 : ii : 2 : 21 :: : : :
1146 : 0 : 0 : 5 :: : : :
1405 : 3 : 9 : 20 :: : :
1811 : 6 : 1 : 9 :: : :
2193 : 83 : 20 : 45 :: : : :
1348 : 38 : 0 : 44 :: : :
1295 : 7 : 4 : 25 :: : :
1899 : ii : 0 : 50 :: : : :
1314 : 16 : 8 : 10 :
: (6)1000 : 23
1000 : 62:
i000’: 78:
i000 : 45:
1000 : 80:
1000 : ll:
1000 : 29:
1000 : 141
lOOO i:
i000 : 63:
lO00 : 19:
lO00 : 27
i000 : 142
: TPADE: REALEST. : ~ :: (7) : (8) : (9) : (ii)
38 : 12 : 42 :: :
130 : 15 : 62 :: : :
238 : 14 : 34 :: : :
170 : 34 : 71 :: :
500 : ii0 : 228 :: : :
69 : 9 : 22 :: :
170 : 36 : 54 :: :
330 : 93 : ii0 : 121 :: :
400 : 75 : 250 :: :
58 : 21 : 19 :: :
122 : 24 : 63 :: : :
390 : 122 : 134: :
57 : 9 : 21 :
9 : 8 ::
33 : 18 :: :
3 : 60 ::
41 : 40 ::
31 : 96 :: :
16 : 14 ::
62 : 22 :
0 :
: :
45 : 150 :: :
80 : 25 :: :
18 : 13 :
94 : 71 ::
20 : 31 :
1530 : 17 : 4 : 22 : i000 : 65 : 206 : 44 : 86 :: :
44 : 42 :
